mi 


>A 


THEISM  AND  EVOLUTION. 


Theism  and  Evolution: 


AN    EXAMINATION    OF 

MODERN  SPECULATIVE   THEORIES   AS   RELATED 

TO    THEISTIC    CONCEPTIONS    OF 

THE    UNIVERSE. 


JOSEPH  S.  VAN  DYKE,   D.D., 

Author  of '"  Through  the  Prison  to  the  Throne?'  "  From  Gloom  to  Gladness,"  etc. 


WITH   AN   INTRODUCTION   BY 
ARCHIBALD  A.  HODGE,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Professor  of  Theology  in  Princeton  Theological  Seminary. 


mte   gorfe: 
A.    C.   ARMSTRONG   &   SON, 

714    BROADWAY. 

1886. 

[All  Rights  Reserved  ] 


Copyright,    1886, 
By  JOSEPH  S.  VAN  DYKE. 


TO    MY    ESTEEMED    FRIEND, 
JOHN  S.   DAVISON, 

TO   WHOSE    ENCOURAGEMENT,    ABIDING   AFFECTION,    AND    HELPFUL   GENEROSITY    THE 

FRIENDS   OF   CHRISTIANITY    ARE   INDEBTED    FOR  THIS    ATTEMPTED 

REFUTATION    OF   ATHEISTIC    FORMS    OF   EVOLUTION, 


gtffrrtiuttately  Qtftitnttft. 


&w  ■""*/,> 


JUL     1    Iff 


r,     v 


^/ogicalSe^ 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Preface n 


Introduction 15 

CHAPTER   I. 
Evolution 23 

CHAPTER  II. 
Is  it  Atheism  ? 36 

CHAPTER  III. 
Man's  Physical  Nature .51 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Man's  Intellectual  Nature 71 

CHAPTER    V. 
Man's  Moral  Nature .84 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Man's  Religious  Nature 99 

CHAPTER   VII. 
The  Father  of  the  Animal  Kingdom 116 


viii  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER    VIII. 
Darwin's  Primordial  Germs 


CHAPTER   IX. 
Haeckel's  Pater  Familias,  the  Moneron 145 

CHAPTER    X. 
Abiogenesis.     ' 161 

CHAPTER   XI 
Matter;  its  Essence 184 

CHAPTER   XII. 
Matter;  its  Properties 197 

CHAPTER   XIII. 
Matter;  its  Origin 212 

CHAPTER   XIV. 
Continuity 23S 

CHAPTER   XV. 
Force 249 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
Force  versus  Materialism 275 

CHAPTER   XVII. 
Life  and  its  Relations  to  Matter 287 

CHAPTER    XVIII. 
Life  and  its   Relations  to  Matter  [Continued)  .      .      .314 


CONTENTS.  ix 

CHAPTER   XIX. 
Mind  and  Matter 333 

CHAPTER   XX. 
The  Cerebrum  the  especial  Organ  of  Mind    .    .      .      .358 

CHAPTER   XXI. 
Molecular  Vibrations  in  the  Brain 378 

CHAPTER   XXII. 
Automatic  Activity  of  the  Cerebrum 388 


CHAPTER   XXIII. 
The  Freedom  of  the  Will 422 

CHAPTER   XXIV. 
Science  and  the  Bible:  no  Conflict 432 

CHAPTER    XXV. 
Science  and  the  Bible:  no  Conflict  {Continued)  .      .      .455 


PREFACE. 


The  outcome  of  modern  scientific  speculation,  as 
connected  with  the  system  of  religious  faith  deducible 
from  God's  Word,  is  likely  to  prove  beneficial  to  the 
human  family. 

Having  enjoyed  the  opportunity  of  weighing  the 
intellectual  products  of  those  who  have  enriched  the 
nineteenth  century,  we  presume  to  invite  the  reader 
to  accompany  us  in  an  examination  of  some  of  the 
conclusions  reached.  Whilst  conceding  that  evolution 
may  give  a  new  impulse  to  embodied  Christianity, 
relieving  it  of  some  objectionable  features,  furnishing 
attractive  arguments  in  its  favor,  and  teaching  the 
church  how  to  employ  new  agencies  in  the  elevation 
of  humanity,  the  writer  has  undertaken  to  present  an 
argument  against  those  forms  of  the  evolutional  theory 
which  seem  to  tend  towards  atheism.  We  have  endeav- 
ored to  cover  the  entire  field  as  connected  with  the  origin 
of  man,  of  matter,  of  force,  of  life,  of  mentality,  of  con- 
science. While  there  is  difficulty  in  believing  it  possible 
that  man's  physical  nature  is  an  evolution  from  the  lower 
animals,  and  still  greater  difficulty  in  imagining  that  his 
intellectual  faculties  may  be,  it  is  apparently  impossible 


xii  PREFACE. 

to  conceive  that  his  moral  and  religious  nature  could 
have  been  evolved  from  animals  destitute  of  even  their 
germs. 

The  origin  of  man,  however,  is  by  no  means  the 
only  obstacle  to  the  acceptance  of  atheistic  forms  of 
evolution.  If  all  life  evolved  from  a  few  primordial 
germs,  can  we  conceive  the  possibility  of  results  so 
numerous  and  so  diverse  from  causes  so  insignificant  ? 
Can  an  "  organless  speck  of  plasson "  develop  the 
myriad  forms  of  animal  and  vegetable  life  ?  Is  a  Su- 
perintending Intelligence  entirely  unnecessary  ? 

Again:  ere  evolution  is  entitled  to  be  regarded  as  a 
theory  capable  of  furnishing  an  explanation  of  the  uni- 
verse, it  ought  to  account  for  the  origin  of  matter,  which 
bears  evidence  of  having  had  a  genesis  external  to  itself. 
This  done,  it  should  show  that  there  has  been  no 
break  in  continuity,  each  present  growing  naturally  out 
of  its  antecedent  past; — and  that  a  series  of  changes 
such  as  evolution  predicates  may  be  infinite. 

This  advanced  theory  meets  also  with  difficulties 
when  it  comes  to  questions  involved  in  the  term  Life. 
Is  life  mere  mechanism  ?  Is  it  a  mode  of  motion  ?  Is  it 
the  aggregated  life  of  an  infinite  number  of  infinitesimal 
bioplasts  ?  Is  it  molecules  of  matter  braided  together 
in  inexplicable  ways?  Is  it  one  side  of  that  "double- 
faced  unity"  matter,  whose  other  side  is  physical  ?  If 
there  is  no  Personal  God,  then  life,  like  matter  and  force, 
is  an  insoluble  enigma. 

Once    more:    if   evolution    is    to    assume  the   role   of 


PREFACE.  xiii 

omnipotence,  it  should  show  itself  competent  to  evolve 
man's  faculties, — the  intellect,  the  sensibilities,  and  the 
will, — from  matter  or  from  physical  force;  that  is,  it  ought 
to  prove  that  mind  and  matter  are  identical,  thought  be- 
ing corpuscular  emanations  from  fibers  vibrating  under 
tension,  or  that  mind  is  a  product  of  matter;  or  that 
mind  and  the  ordinary  physical  forces  are  identical,  or 
that  the  former  is  a  product  of  the  latter.  It  is  asked 
to  present  incontrovertible  evidence  that  the  brain  is  not 
the  organ  of  the  mind,  but  is  the  mind  itself,  or  is  the 
efficient  cause  of  which  mind  is  but  an  effect.  It  must 
then  prove  that  all  mental  activity  is  strictly  automatic, 
man  being  under  an  inexorable  necessity,  his  motives,  his 
processes  of  reasoning,  his  volitions  being  formed  for 
him,  not  by  him. 

There  is  no  conflict  between  Science  and  the  Bible. 
They  agree  in  regarding  the  Divine  Will  as  the  origi- 
nating cause  of  all  things,  in  conceding  that  there  has 
been  development,  in  admitting  that  there  have  been 
breaks  in  the  ordinarily  continuous  flow  of  events,  in 
believing  that  the  present  arrangements  of  nature  must 
have  had  a  beginning  and  will  have  an  end,  and  in 
attributing  the  continued  existence  of  the  universe  to 
a  Power  above  nature. 

We  hope  the  volume  shall  evince  the  existence  of 
mentality  as  an  entity  distinct  from  matter,  for  it  is 
inconceivable  that  oatmeal  and  beefsteak  were  so  trans- 
muted by  the  ordinary  physical  forces  that  a  relentless 
necessity  elaborated  and  launched  this  argument  upon 


xiv  PREFACE. 

the  troubled  waters  of  modern  discussion.  We  prefer  to 
believe  that  will-force  had  something  to  do  with  its  pro- 
duction, and  that  this  will-force  was  not  a  product  of  the 
granary  and  the  meat-market.  The  book  is  a  witness,  we 
imagine,  to  the  fact  that  necessity,  generated  in  gross 
atoms,  has  not  extinguished  individual  liberty. 

The  Author. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Since  the  appearance  of  Charles  Darwin's  great  work, 
The  Origin  of  Species,  the  general  doctrine  of  evolu- 
tion, in  one  or  other  of  its  many  forms,  has  been  very 
generally  accepted  by  scientists  as  representing  the  view 
they  have  come  to  take  of  the  operations  of  nature. 
This  general  conception  of  evolution  is  as  old  as  human 
speculation,  but  it  has  only  now  been  associated  with 
accurate  scientific  methods,  as  a  working  hypothesis, 
and  its  truth  supposed  to  be  verified  by  actual  proof.  It 
is  typified  by  the  gradual  growth  under  proper  conditions 
of  the  chicken  out  of  the  egg;  of  the  tree  out  of  the 
seed;  of  the  foetus  out  of  the  germ;  of  the  man  out  of 
the  babe;  and  the  solar  systems,  with  their  suns,  planets, 
and  satelites  in  various  stages  of  consolidation  and 
refrigeration,  out  of  the  original  nebula,  "without  form 
and  void,"  to  which  Scripture  as  well  as  Science  traces 
back  the  birth  of  the  material  universe.  The  things  that 
are,  proceed  out  of  the  things  that  were,  and  in  turn  give 
birth  to  the  things  that  are  to  be,  in  unbroken  continuity 
and  imperceptible  transitions,  through  the  operation  of 
natural  laws.  This  is  the  very  meaning  of  the  old  familiar 
term  "  Nature,"  that  which  is  born,  and  that  which  gives 


xvi  INTRODUCTION. 

birth.  The  natura  naturans,  the  present  equilibrium  of 
the  universe,  producing  the  in-coming  equilibrium  of  the 
universe,  or  the  natura  naturata. 

Mere  science  has  nothing  to  do  with  origins,  or  causes, 
or  final  ends.  It  is  concerned  only  with  phenomena  and 
their  fixed  relations  in  time  and  space.  It  is  obvious  that 
in  this  definite  view  of  the  range  of  science,  the  phe- 
nomena of  the  physical  world  at  least  do  present  in  their 
ceaseless  successions  the  appearance  which  the  evolu- 
>  tionist  describes.  The  solar  system  is  passing  before  our 
eyes  through  constant  changes.  The  sun  as  it  grows 
cooler  is  becoming  more  like  Jupiter,  Jupiter  more  like 
the  earth,  and  the  earth  more  like  the  moon.  The  earth 
and  its  zones  are  passing  without  interruption  along  a 
line  of  graduated  change  to  which  the  fauna  and  flora  of 
all  continents  are  continually  being  adjusted.  The  vari- 
ous species  of  plants  and  animals  rise  from  the  simplest 
to  the  most  complex  in  an  ideal  order,  and  new  perma- 
nent varieties  spring  up  before  our  eyes  out  of  the  unity 
of  ancient  species  under  new  physical  conditions.  The 
human  race  itself  has  been  differentiated  into  innumerable 
varieties  by  means  of  differences  of  climate,  and  social 
conditions  and  the  like,  and  all  these  changes  are  pro- 
gressing in  unbroken  continuity  through  our  own  age 
into  the  future,  just  as  they  have  through  all  past  stages 
of  human  history. 

The  scientific  doctrine  of  evolution  emphasizes  this 
view  of  the  succession  of  phenomena,  and  applies  it  as  a 
hypothetical  law,  or  working  hypothesis,  in  every  depart- 


INTRODUCTION.  xvii 

ment  of  scientific  investigation;  to  the  inorganic  king- 
dom, as  cosmical  evolution;  to  the  kingdom  of  life  alike 
vegetable  and  animal;  to  the  origination  of  species  as 
well  as  that  of  varieties  and  of  individuals;  to  the  king- 
dom of  mind,  to  account  for  the  origin  of  ideas,  and  laws 
of  thought;  and  to  the  kingdom  of  social  and  political 
life  as  traced  in  the  origin  and  progress  of  human  societies. 
Now  when  strictly  confined  to  the  legitimate  limits 
of  pure  science,  that  is,  to  the  scientific  account  of  phe- 
nomena and  their  laws  of  co-existence  and  of  succession, 
this  doctrine  of  evolution  is  not  antagonistic  to  our  faith 
as  either  theists  or  christians.  It  is  only  when  this 
theory  assumes  to  be  a  philosophy,  or  becomes  as- 
sociated with  a  philosophy  supplying  the  ideas,  the 
causes,  and  the  final  ends  which  give  a  rational  ac- 
count of  the  facts  collected,  that  it  can  challenge 
our  interest  as  christians,  or  threaten  our  faith.  Evo- 
lution as  connected  with  a  materialistic  philosophy 
will,  of  course,  as  are  all  phrases  of  materialism,  be  in- 
consistent with  natural  theism  and  revealed  religion. 
The  same  is  equally  true  if  the  theory  of  evolution  is 
worked  out  on  a  basis  of  pantheism.  If  evolution  is 
itself  erected  into  a  complete  philosophy,  and  be  put  to 
the  magical  task  of  tracing  the  growth  of  all  things  out 
of  nothing,  and  of  a  rational  and  all-comprehensive  sysf 
tern  of  knowledge  out  of  agnostic  premises,  then  of  course 
the  result  must  be  equally  fatal  to  human  reason  and  to 
christian  faith.  If  again,  progress  along  the  entire  line 
of  biological   advance  is   explained   wholly  on    the    hy- 


xviii  INTRODUCTION. 

pothesis  of  an  all-directioned  variation,  and  the  selection 
of  special  forms  by  an  accidental  environment  (the  pre 
cise  position  of  Darwin),  then  certainly  the  universe 
and  its  order  is  referred  to  Chance,  teleology  is  impos- 
sible, theism  stripped  of  its  most  effective  evidence,  and 
therefore  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  was  abundantly  justified 
in  indicating  this  phase  of  evolution  as  atheistic.  More- 
over a  theory  of  evolution  which  refuses  to  coalesce  for 
any  reason  with  spiritual  views  of  man  and  God  and  their 
relations,  which  admits  of  the  possibility  of  no  interrup- 
tion at  any  time  or  for  any  end;  of  no  influence  of  any 
active  agents  exterior  to  the  limited  group  of  natural 
agents  subject  to  the  test  of  experiment,  and  hence  of 
quantitative  determination,  will  of  course  lead  to  a  denial 
of  the  supernatural,  and  render  prayer  a  delusion  and  all 
religion  superstitious.  y/ 

But  it  is  evident  that  any  doctrine  of  evolution  which 
intelligently  recognizes  the  plain  facts  of  man's  spiritual 
nature,  his  reason,  conscience,  and  free-will,  will  equally 
recognize  the  same  attributes  as   the  property  of  God. 
Evolution  considered  as  the  plan  of  an  infinitely  wise  Per- 
son and  executed  under  the  control  of  His  everywhere 
present  energies  can  never  be  irreligious;  can  never  ex- 
clude design,  providence,  grace,  or  miracles.     Hence  wel 
repeat  that  what   christians  have  cause  to  consider  withl 
apprehension  is  not  evolution  as  a  working  hypothesis  i 
of  science  dealing  with  facts,  but  evolution  as  a  philo-  1 
sophical  speculation  professing  to  account  for  the  origin,  ' 
causes,  and  ends  of  all  things.     Science  owes  its  special 


INTRODUCTION.  xix 

authority  to  its  close  adherence  to  facts  capable  of  verifi- 
cation. But  the  philosophy  of  evolution  has  nothing  to 
distinguish  it  from  the  great  multitude  of  transient  spec- 
ulations which  for  thousands  of  years  have  been  broken 
on  the  eternal  facts  of  man's  spiritual  nature  like  the  tides 
of  the  sea  are  broken  upon  the  granite  rock  of  the  coast. 
The  claim  for  finality  and  of  superior  authority  put  forth 
by  this  philosophy  is  simply  absurd.  But  the  conduct 
of  some  weak  christian  apologists  who  hasten  with 
super-serviceable  zeal  to  abate  the  claims  of  revelation, 
and  to  adjust  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  to  the  demands 
of  the  passing  mode  of  thinking  of  the  hour,  surpasses  all 
else  in  absurdity.  It  is  inconsistent  with  honest  faith  to 
fear  any  possible  outcome  of  genuine  scientific  pro- 
gress. True  science  leads  only  to  the  truth,  and  all 
truth  is  congruous  with  true  religion.  We  should  heartily 
bid  science  God  speed.  Since  our  religion  is  true, 
matured  science  can  only  confirm  and  illume  it.  We 
have  nothing  to  fear  from  the  ultimate  results  of  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  as  a  factor  in  science.  For  the 
same  reason  it  is  not  becoming  the  christian  faith  for 
its  representatives  to  show  haste  in  bringing  forth 
crude  schemes  for  reconciling  our  time-tested  inter- 
pretations of  Scripture  with  the  transient  interpreta- 
tions of  nature  presented  by  science  in  its  hypothetical 
stage. 

In  the  meantime,  while  we  wait,  it  will  suffice  to  in- 
dicate certain  boundary  lines  which  the  scientific  doc- 
trine of  evolution  must  not  pass;  and  the  passing  of  which 


xx  INTR  OD  UC  TION. 

can  alone  be  rightly  regarded   as  a  casus   belli  by  the  | 
christian  church. 

Every  rational  doctrine  of  evolution  must  recognize  j 
(its  own  limitations,  and  presuppose^   creative   and  ra- 
Vional  basis   on  which   it   rests.     The  evolving  agencies  | 
and  the  laws  of  their  evolution  must  necessarily  precede 
and  can   never  be  accounted  for   by  the  process  of  the 
evolution  itself. 

A  true  doctrine  of  evolution  can  never  violate  the  j 
fundamental  laws  of  human  thought.  The  universal 
causal  judgment  affirms  that  every  new  thing  coming 
into  being  must  have  been  preceded  by  a  cause  ade- 
quate to  account  rationally  for  its  existence.  No  possi- 
ble evolution  of  molecular  mechanics  can  account  for 
the  origin  of  life,  nor  for  the  peculiar  properties  of  living 
beings,  such  as  organic  form,  or  function,  reproduction, 
heredity,  and  the  like.  Much  less  can  such  a  cause  ac-  I 
count  for  the  origin  of  sensation,  consciousness,  instinct, 
or  intelligence. 

Much  less  can  any  doctrine  really  scientific  pretend 
to  account  for  the  origination  of  the  higher  reason  of  I 
man,  and  especially  for  his  conscience  and  its  imperial 
dictates,  by  any  evolution  from  preceding  non-rational 
or  non-moral  existence.  The  new  facts  are  not  com- 
posites resulting  from  the  synthesis  of  pre-existing  ele- 
ments. They  are  ultimate,  incapable  of  analysis,  ess<  n- 
tially  distinct,  and  they  could  have  been  introduced  into 
the  flow  of  natural  evolution  only  by  an  immediate  act 
of  God,  as  a  new  thread  is    shot    by    the    hand    of  the 


INTRODUCTION.  xxi 

weaver  into  a  rapidly  evolving  web  of  cloth.  Hence  it 
follows  that  no  true  doctrine  of  evolution  can  pretend  to 
account  on  its  own  principles  alone  for  the  origin  of  man, 
nor  for  his  fall,  nor  for  the  great  central  epoch-making 
stages  of  his  redemption.  The  soul  of  man  stands  in  such 
marked  contrast  with  all  that  precedes  it  as  to  be  evi- 
dently a  new  creation,  and  its  advent  introduces  a  new 
era.  Hence  the  facts  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  as  to  the 
creation  of  Adam  and  the  formation  of  Eve  are  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  analogy  of  truth,  and  must  be  recognized 
as  historically  true.  The  character  of  man  sets  him  forth 
evidently  as  subject  to  a  law  of  entirely  different  grade 
than  that  which  has  been  operating  in  the  previous 
history  of  the  world.  New  relations  are  sustained  and  a 
new  order  of  events  introduced.  Henceforth  no  doctrine 
of  evolution  can  be  tenable  which  does  not  make  room 
for  a  moral  government  and  a  redemptive  providence, 
including  miracles  md  the  Incarnation  of  God,  and  the 
gracious  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

It  is  not  intended  in  all  that  has  been  said  to  express 
any  opinion  as  to  the  truth  of  evolution  in  any  of  its 
forms,  but  only  to  indicate  the  limits,  on  the  respective 
sides  of  which  christians,  as  such,  can  have  no  con- 
troversy, or  no  truce. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  has  already  acquired  an  enviable  reputa- 
tion as  a  successful  author.  He  is  able,  learned,  and 
thoroughly  sound  in  his  philosopical  and  theological 
principles.  The  present  work  is  on  a  subject  of  uni- 
versal interest  and  of  vital  importance,  and  is  the  result  of 


xxii  INTRODUCTION. 

very  wide  reading  and  of  mature  reflection.  It  is  not 
intended  for  men  of  science,  but  for  that  large  circle  of 
general  readers  who  are  interested  in  such  questions. 
The  object  is  to  allay  unwarranted  fears  on  the  part  of 
christians,  and  to  warn  careless  speculators  of  the  limits 
beyond  which  it  is  unsafe  to  go.  The  undersigned  has 
accepted  the  honor  of  contributing  this  Introduction,  not 
because  he  agrees  with  all  the  positions  assumed  by  the 
author,  but  because  he  sympathizes  with  his  general 
purpose,  and  believes  the  work  adapted  to  be  generally 
useful.  The  writer  of  the  Introduction,  as  far  as  he  differs 
from  the  author,  would  have  preferred  a  more  imperative 
affirmation  of  the  limits  beyond  which  science  cannot 
rationally  pass,  nor  pass  without  conflict  with  Chris- 
tianity. This  however  does  not  prevent  his  sincere  hope 
that  the  book  may  be  greatly  blessed  in  its  destined  end 
of  confirming  true  philosophy  and  revealed  religion,  and 
in  promoting  peace  between  the  men  of  knowledge  and 

the  men  of  faith. 

A.  A.  Hodge. 


CHAPTER   I. 

EVOLUTION. 

WHATEVER  hopes  or  fears  we  may  entertain  in  reference 
to  the  issue  of  the  investigations  now  so  assiduously- 
pursued  with  the  view  of  confirming  the  theory  of 
evolution,  and  to  whatever  place  they  may  ultimately 
succeed  in  assigning  man, — whether  in  nature  or  above 
nature,— there  can  be  no  question  that  the  conclusions 
reached  and  the  problems  therein  involved  are  well 
worthy  the  christian's  careful  study.  The  dispassionate 
discussion  of  subjects  so  momentous  can  only  result  in 
good.  New  facts  will  be  accumulated.  Laws  hitherto 
unknown  will  be  discovered,  and  will  secure  expression 
in  enduring  form.     Truth  will  be  eliminated  from  error. 

It  is  now  conceded  that  new  species  have  been  intro- 
duced upon  the  earth' since  the  dawn  of  creation,  especi- 
ally during  the  long  geological  periods  which  preceded 
man's  existence;  and  when  once  we  have  been  induced 
to  believe  that  creation  has  had  a  history  we  are  irresis- 
tibly led  to  inquire  after  its  method.  In  what  way  have 
new  specific  forms  been  produced  ?  To  this  question 
varying  answers  have  been  given. 

I.  New  species  have  been  regarded  as  immediate 
creations.  This  is  the  view  widely  adopted  by  defenders 
of  the  Bible.  It  assumes  that  each  plant  and  animal 
was  created  in  a  primitive  stock,  which  reproduces  its 
like,   thereby  perpetuating   the   species;   that  species  is 


24  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

traceable  backwards  to  a  local  origin  and  a  single  pair; 
that  all  species  vary — some  more,  some  less;  that  their 
variations  are  due,  partly  to  the  influence  of  altered 
circumstances,  and  partly  to  constitutional  causes,  but 
are  limited  in  their  extent  and  transitory  in  their  nature, 
the  species  remaining  substantially  as  originally  created; 
that  the  sterility  of  hybrids  imposes  an  effectual  barrier 
against  the  destruction  of  species. 

2.  It  has  been  argued  that  new  species  are  results, 
more  or  less  remote,  of  spontaneous  generation.  As  it 
has  not  been  proved  that  inorganic  matter  is  capable  of 
originating  living  organisms,  we  may  be  excused  for 
questioning  whether  the  forces  of  nature,  acting  either 
from  within  or  from  without,  could  have  generated  new 
specific  forms  either  directly  or  mediately,  especially 
such  forms  as  are  acknowledged  to  have  originated  in 
past  geological  epochs. 

3.  It  has  been  assumed  that  the  introduction  of  new 
species  is  a  result  of  the  operations  of  a  powerful,  uncon- 
scious cause  pervading  all  things.  This  explanation 
may  be  left  to  share  the  fate  of  the  pantheistic  system  in 
which  it  is  embedded. 

4.  The  successive  appearances  of  new  species  are  now 
explained,  with  increasing  frequency,  by  the  theory 
which  passes  under  the  name  of  "  Evolution."  This 
theory  may  be  briefly  outlined  as  the  realization  of  new 
specific  organisms  which  were  previously  potential,  their 
realization  being  under  such  conditions  as  prove  them 
the  legitimate  outgrowth  of  anterior  organisms.  Start- 
ing with  the  assertion  that  species  are  mutable,  and 
that  consequently  each  may  develop  new  types,  which 
for  some  unexplained  reason  are  improved  forms — that 
the  horse,  for  example,  may  have  been  developed  from 
the  zebra,  the  dog  from  the  wolf,  the  rose  from  the  daisy, 


EVOLUTION.  25 

the  bird  from  the  fish — it  culminates  in  the  assumption 
that  man  by  an  almost  infinite  number  of  insensible 
gradations  has  been  evolved  from  the  orang-outang,  or 
from  the  gorilla,  certainly  from  some  species  of  the 
monkey-tribe.  This  simial  father  of  us  all,  it  is  assumed, 
was  developed  from  some  lower  organism,  which  in  turn 
owed  its  origin  to  a  still  less  complex  form,  and  so  back- 
wards to  the  germ  of  organic  life,  the  slight  changes, 
always  resulting  in  improvement,  having  succeeded  each 
other  for  millions  of  years  ere  man  as  a  gibbering  savage 
was  ushered  upon  the  wrorld's  stage.  Varieties  are  inci- 
pient species.  Species  are  varieties  of  a  larger  growth 
and  an  earlier  divergence  from  the  parent  form;  the 
difference  is  one  of  degree,  not  of  kind.  Neither  was 
created;  both  have  descended  from  an  ever  varying 
series  of  individuals,  the  one  being  only  a  more  ex- 
tended and  slightly  less  plastic  aggregate  of  insensibly 
fine  gradations  accumulated  during  an  indefinitely  pro- 
tracted period  of  time. * 

Herbert  Spencer,  in  his  First  Principles,  defines  evolu- 
tion as  an  "  integration  of  matter  and  concomitant  dissi- 

*  Haeckel,  whose  theory  of  evolution  is  decidedly  atheistic,  maintains  that 
all  living  organisms  have  been  evolved  through  millions  of  years  from  one  or 
more  very  simple  ancestral  forms  which  issued  by  spontaneous  generation  from 
inorganic  matter.  He  concedes  that  organic  life  had  a  beginning,  and  asserts 
that  monera  were  developed  by  spontaneous  generation  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea. 
Assertion,  however,  is  not  proof;  nor  is  it  easy  to  see  how  the  assertion  can  be 
made  good  by  satisfactory  evidence. 

Sir  William  Thomson  expresses  the  belief  that  organic  life  was  communi- 
cated to  the  earth  by  a  germ  or  germs  conveyed  in  a  meteor  or  meteors  from 
some  other  planet.     A  simple  hypothesis. 

There  are  other  evolutionists  who  prefer  to  believe  that  God,  millions  of 
years  ago,  called  a  primordial  form,  a  simple  cell,  into  being,  and  since  that 
time  has  had  no  more  to  do  with  the  universe  than  if  he  did  not  exist.  The 
"  clock  being  once  wound  up  was  left  to  tell  off  its  fated  periods. 

"Neither  so  do  their  witness  agree." 


26  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

pation  of  motion;  during  which  the  matter  passes  from 
an  indefinite,  incoherent  homogeneity  to  a  definite,  co- 
herent heterogeneity;  and  during  which  the  retained 
motion  undergoes  a  parallel  transformation"  (p.  396). 

This  definition  is  an  evolution  out  of  a  protracted 
series  of  arguments  as  presented  in  several  consecutive 
chapters.  In  its  successive  stages,  it  assumed  the  fol- 
lowing forms: — "  We  shall  everywhere  mean  by  evo- 
lution, the  process  which  is  always  an  integration  of 
matter  and  a  dissipation  of  motion  "  (p.  286);  "Evolu- 
tion is  definable  as  a  change  from  an  incoherent  homo- 
geneity to  a  coherent  heterogeneity  "  (p.  360) ;  "  Evolution 
is  a  change  from  an  indefinite,  incoherent  homogeneity, 
to  a  definite,  coherent  heterogeneity,  through  continuous 
differentiations  and  integrations."  This  last  mentioned 
form  Professor  Tait  translates  as  follows:  "  Evolution  is 
fa  change  from  a  n  oho  wish,  untalkaboutable  all-alike- 
ness,  to  a  somehowish  and  in-general-talkaboutable  not- 
all-alikeness,  by  continuous  somethingelseifications  and 
sticktogetherations." 

Even  Spencer's  most  elaborate  definition  finds  itself  the 
victim  of  the  evolutional  process,  for  on  page  430,  after 
supposing  we  had  grasped  the  whole  truth,  we  are  startled 
by  the  announcement,  "The  continued  changes  which 
characterize  evolution,  in  so  far  as  they  are  constituted 
by  the  lapse  of  the  less  heterogeneous  into  the  more 
heterogeneous,  are  necessary  consequences  of  the  per- 
sistence of  force."  Alas,  the  definition  is  not  through  its 
transformations  and  improvements;  on  page  458  we  read, 
"  A  part-cause  of  evolution  is  the  multiplication  of 
effects;  and  this  increases  in  geometrical  progression  as 
the  heterogeneity  becomes  greater."  Are  the  flukes  of 
our  anchor  now  fast  in  the  crevices  of  unchangeable 
truth  ?     No;  "  Evolution  can  end  only  in  the  establish- 


EVOLUTION.  27 

ment  of  the  greatest  perfection  and  the  most  complete 
happiness  "  (p.  517).  "  And  thus  there  is  suggested  the 
conception  of  a  past  during  which  there  have  been  suc- 
cessive evolutions  analogous  to  that  which  is  now  going 
on;  and  a  future  during  which  successive  other  such 
evolutions  may  go  on — ever  the  same  in  principle  but 
never  the  same  in  concrete  form"  (p.  537).  "  The  one 
[spirit]  no  less  than  the  other  [matter]  is  to  be  regarded 
as  but  a  sign  of  the  Unknown  Reality  which  underlies 
both." 

Darwin,  who  may  claim  the  honor  of  occupying  a 
foremost  rank  among  evolutionists,  holds  the  generally 
accepted  view  of  the  descent  of  all  the  individuals  of  a 
species  from  a  single  birth-place  and  from  one  ancestral 
form,  each  species  having  subsequently  established  itself 
as  widely  as  possible.  He  denies  that  species  are  an 
independent  creation,  and  persists  in  regarding  them  as 
only  varieties  of  a  very  early  date;  genera  he  looks 
upon  as  ancient  species.  The  inherent  predisposition 
in  plants  and  animals  to  vary  has  sufficed,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  causes  originating  in  the  intense  struggle 
for  existence,  to  modify  all  species  and  to  produce  the 
present  diversity.  All  living  organisms,  he  thinks,  have 
been  evolved  from  four  or  five  primordial  forms.  "  I 
believe,"  he  says,  "that  all  animals  have  descended 
from  at  most  only  four  or  five  progenitors,  and  plants 
from  an  equal  number."  Again:  "Possibly  all  the  orig- 
inal beings  which  have  ever  lived  on  the  earth  are  de- 
scended from  some  one  primordial  form  into  which  life 
was  first  breathed."  He  does  not  regard  variability  as  a 
necessary  contingency  of  organic  beings  under  all  circum- 
stances; he  maintains  that  there  are  no  species  which 
refuse  to  vary  provided  they  are  placed  under  conditions 
favorable  to  the  production  of  variations,  and  he  affirms 


28  THEISM  AND   EVOLUTION. 

that  when  once  a  species  has  begun  to  vary,  its  varieties 
are  more  and  more  subject  to  variation.  He  asks,  "How 
could  a  savage  possibly  know,  when  he  first  trained  an 
animal,  whether  it  would  vary  in  succeeding  genera- 
tions?" Hence  he  infers  that  the  animals  which  sav- 
ages originally  chose  for  domestication  had  no  extraor- 
dinary inherent  tendency  to  vary;  varieties,  he  affirms, 
often  vary  more  under  domestication  than  distinct 
species  in  a  wild  state. 

It  may  as  well  be  frankly  acknowledged  that  many 
and  serious  difficulties  environ  any  hypothesis  which 
we  may  choose  to  adopt.  If  we  say  that  each  new 
species,  as  it  originated  in  some  period  subsequent  to 
the  dawn  of  life  upon  the  earth,  was  an  immediate 
creation  of  God,  we  seem  to  array  ourselves  against 
the  Mosaic  account;  we  certainly  bring  ourselves  into 
conflict  with  the  usually  accepted  interpretation.  If 
we  say  that  species,  as  they  have  successively  appeared 
in  geological  eras,  may  have  originated  in  spontaneous 
generation,  we  not  only  impose  upon  ourselves  the  task 
of  proving  that  life  can  originate  and  actually  has  origi- 
nated in  certain  combinations  of  inorganic  matter,  but 
we  take  a  long  stride  towards  materialism.  If  we  say, 
new  species  have  been  evolved  from  pre-existing  species, 
without  the  superintendence  of  an  intelligent  agent  and 
without  having  been  previously  latent  in  parental  forms, 
we  accept  evolution.  If  we  say  they  are  the  natural 
unfoldings  of  forces  originally  communicated  to  the  sev- 
eral species  which  were  called  into  being  by  a  direct  fiat 
of  the  Divine  Will,  we  accept  a  species  of  evolution  and 
expose  ourselves  to  renewed  attacks  from  those  who 
persist  in  affirming  that  if  new  species  may  originate 
in  this  manner,  we  ought  not  to  assume  that  God  did 
more  origmally  than  create  one  germ  of  life  capable  of 


EVOLUTION.  29 

evolving  all  vegetable  and  animal  organisms;  indeed, 
that  we  ought  to  concede  this.  He  may  have  imparted 
to  oxygen,  hydrogen,  nitrogen,  and  carbon,  when  sub- 
jected to  the  influence  of  electricity,  the  power  of  origi- 
nating protoplasm,  or  the  physical  basis  of  life. 

We  cannot  insist  too  strongly  that  the  question 
under  discussion  is  not  what  is  a  possible  or  conceivable 
or  probable  way  in  which  species  originated,  but  what 
is  the  particular  mode  in  which  they  actually  originated. 
It  is  perhaps  possible  that  the  struggle  for  existence, 
which  some  evolutionists  imagine  they  have  forced  upon 
the  christian  church,  may  yet  evolve  a  second  Bishop 
Butler;  if  this  should 'prove  to  be  the  case  much  of  the 
a  priori  reasoning-  of  modern  scientists  would  become, 
in  his  intellectual  grasp,  mere  hay,  wood,  and  stubble, 
in  the  burning  of  which  new  light  would  be  thrown  on 
Final  Causes.  The  questions  connected  with  the  origin 
of  new  species,  if  ever  settled,  must  be  settled  by  in- 
duction, not  by  a  priori  arguments. 

This  new  theory,  now  so  vigorously  advocated  by  an 
increasing  number  of  those  who  are  making  the  origin 
of  species  a  special  study,  can  scarcely  be  considered 
a  recent  evolution  from  man's  fertile  brain.  It  was 
first  propounded,  though  in  crude  form,  by  Aristotle 
in  his  Generation  and  Development  of  Animals.  In  1759 
Casper  Friedrich  Wolff,  a  careful  observer  and  an  acute 
reasoner,  presented  to  the  world  his  Theoria  Genera- 
tions. The  publication  of  this  work  in  reality  marks 
the  birth  of  the  theory  of  evolution.  It  made  very  few 
converts,  however,  during  the  life-time  of  its  author, 
who  received  liberal  installments  of  embittered  prejudice 
and  no  small  amount  of  ridicule.  The  work,  however, 
produced  results  fifty  years  later.  In  1809  Juan  Lamarck 
presented    the    same    views,    in    his   Philosophic  Zoolo- 


30  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

giqnc,  in  more  captivating  form,  though  his  reasoning 
was  less  cogent  and  his  array  of  facts  more  wearisome. 
He  attempted  to  point  out  the  steps  by  which  nature  in 
former  times  proceeded  in  her  development  of  one  class 
of  beings  from  another,  endeavoring  to  establish  a  grad- 
uated scale  with  the  lowest  organisms  at  one  end  and 
the  human  species  at  the  other.  He  even  essayed  to 
prove  that  man's  intellectual,  moral,  and  religious  faculties 
were  the  same  in  kind  as  those  possessed  by  the  brute 
creation— simply  improvements.  Fifty  years  later  the 
world  was  presented  with  Darwinism,  the  popularity  of 
which  is  in  singular  contrast  with  the  reception  given  to 
the  development  hypothesis  in  preceding  ages,  and  is, 
in  the  judgment  of  some,  one  of  the  marvels  of  this  cen- 
tury. It  is  difficult  to  explain  its  rapid  progress  unless 
we  concede  that  scientific  studies  were  tending  in  this 
direction.  The  interesting  style  in  which  it  is  presented 
and  the  apparent  fairness  in  the  methods  of  reasoning 
have  been  efficient  agencies,  it  is  believed,  in  bringing 
about  such  extended  results  in  a  comparatively  brief 
period  of  time. 

Whilst  evolutionists  agree  in  asserting  that  new  spe- 
cies have  been  evolved  from  pre-existing  organisms, 
there  is  nevertheless  great  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the 
agency  by  which  these  changes  have  been  effected.  The 
following  have  been  assigned: — 

i.  New  specific  forms  have  been  regarded  as  the  re- 
sults of  a  "  fortuitous  concurrence  of  circumstances."  This 
is  only  a  wordy  method  of  confessing  an  inability  to  ex- 
plain the  phenomena,  and  reminds  one  of  the  old  dialec- 
ticians, who  attempted  to  answer  the  question,  "Has 
the  ideal  exemplar  of  species  an  existence  independent 
of  the  individuals  which  constitute  the  species." 

2.  St.   George  Mivart  believes  that  species  possess  an  ' 


EVOLUTION.  31 

inherent  power  of  producing  new  species.  This  solution, 
though  entirely  consistent  with  a  theistic  view  of  evolu- 
tion, is  environed  with  difficulties.  To  say  that  in  ad- 
dition to  the  power  which  maintains  species  for  such  an 
indefinitely  lengthy  period  of  time  there  is  also  an  innate 
energy  capable  of  destroying  the  marks  and  breaking 
down  the  limits  of  species  is  a  solution  which  many  nat- 
uralists refuse  to  consider  satisfactory. 

3.  We  have  the  theory  of  Mr.  Charles  Darwin  that  the 
transmutation  of  species  is  gradually  but  surely  effected 
by  "  natural  selection,"  "  the  survival  of  the  fittest,"  "  the 
struggle  for  existence."  This  hypothesis,  though  em- 
bodying much  and  explaining  not  a  few  of  the  facts,  is  not 
viewed,  even  by  a  majority  of  evolutionists,  as  an  adequate 
explanation — indeed,  not  a  few  careful  students  of  Dar- 
win deny  that  he  assigns  any  efficiency  to  "  natural  se- 
lection "  in  the  origination  of  new  species,  affirming  that 
he  merely  regards  it  as  the  mode  in  which  unknown 
causes  operate  in  the  production  of  the  results.  If 
he  designs  it  as  an  agency,  St.  George  Mivart's  work 
furnishes  theologians  with  an  unanswerable  argument 
against  this  particular  form  of  evolution. 

So  far  at  least  as  regards  the  agencies  by  which  evo- 
lution has  been  effected,  the  defenders  of  the  Mosaic 
account  of  creation  can  scarcely  be  called  upon  to  as- 
sume the  defensive  till  their  opponents  have  agreed, 
with  at  least  reasonable  unanimity,  upon  some  hypothesis 
that  will  bear  the  test  of  a  rigid  scientific  investigation. 
That  no  such  hypothesis  has  been  presented  is  conceded 
in  the  fact  that  so  many  are  engaged  in  demolishing 
others'  theories  in  order  to  clear  the  ground  for  the 
establishment  of  their  own. 

Those  who  have  attempted  a  refutation  of  evolu- 
tion  have   also  undertaken    to    assign    causes  adequate 


32  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

to    produce    the    changes    which    are    known    to    have 
occurred. 

1.  It  has  been  maintained  that  new  species  are  results 
of  some  constitutional  affection  of  parental  forms.  This 
explanation  was  pressed  with  great  vigor  in  the  earlier 
discussions  upon  this  subject.  It  is  now  abandoned,  it 
being  conceded  that  sensitive  as  the  reproductive  sys- 
tem is,  and  many  as  are  the  diseases  of  parent  organ- 
isms, such  causes  are  inadequate  to  the  production  of 
new  species. 

2.  Others,  when  the  subject  was  less  thoroughly  under- 
stood than  it  is  at  present,  were  disposed  to  consider 
the  changes  as  mere  freaks  of  nature,  such  as  produced 
the  porcupine-man  and  his  descendants.  This  unscientific 
explanation  has  had  its  day  and  is  no  longer  worthy 
of  mention  except  as  a  specimen  of  the  subterfuges  to 
which  even  profound  reasoners  will  sometimes  resort.* 

3.  It  has  been  said,  the  changes  result  from  the  ac- 
tion of  climate  upon  constitutional  tendencies.  It  is 
admitted  that  varying  degrees  of  heat  and  altered  modes 

*  Francis  Turretin,  a  distinguished  Protestant  Professor  of  Theology,  whose 
writings  have  sustained  an  enviable  reputation  even  to  the  present  day,  asks, 
"  Do  the  sun  and  the  moon  move  in  the  heavens  round  the  earth,  while  the  earth 
remains  at  rest  ?  "  He  answers,  "  Yes,  in  opposition  to  certain  philosophers. 
First,  The  sun  is  said  in  Scriptures  to  move  in  the  heavens,  and  to  rise  and  set. 
Second,  The  sun  by  a  miracle  stood  still  in  the  time  of  Joshua;  and  by  a 
miracle  it  went  back  in  the  time  of  Ilezekiah.  Third,  The  earth  is  said  to  bt 
fixed  immovably.  Fourth,  Neither  could  birds,  which  often  fly  off  through  an 
hour's  circuit,  be  able  to  return  to  their  nests;  for  in  the  meantime  the  earth 
would  have  moved  four  hundred  and  fifty  miles.  Fifth,  Whatever  flies  or  is 
suspended  in  the  air  ought,  by  this  theory,  to  move  from  west  to  east;  but  this 
is  proved  not  to  be  true  from  arrows  shot  forth,  atoms  made  manifest  in  the  sun. 
and  down  floating  in  the  atmosphere." 

The  same  author  presents  a  series  of  labored  arguments  to  prove  that  man 
must  have  been  created  in  the  autumn— if  not,  he  would  have  starved  to  death 
ere  he  could  have  raised  a  crop,  or  found  it  prepared  to  his  hand  by  bounteous 
nature. 


EVOLUTION.  33 

of  life  may  produce  new  varieties — can  it  also  produce 
new  species?  Sufficient  evidence  to  prove  this  has  not 
been  presented.* 

It  is  not  claimed,  however,  that  the  doctrine  of  evolu- 
tion is  refuted  by  showing  that  its  advocates  are  unable 
to  agree  in  reference  to  the  agencies  by  which  new  spe- 
cies are  developed  from  antecedent  organisms.  It  is  con- 
ceivable that  they  should  succeed  in  establishing  a  law  of 
evolution  without  being  able  to  specify  the  causes  which 
produce  the  ever  changing  series  of  effects;  indeed,  to 
regard  the  theory  as  absurd,  especially  in  its  more  mod- 
est pretensions,  is  to  acknowledge  ignorance  of  the  facts, 
or  to  confess  oneself  under  the  influence  of  strong  pre- 
judice; on  the  other  hand,  to  view  the  theory  as  fully  es- 
tablished, even  to  the  furthest  limits  to  which  it  has  been 
pushed,  is  to  proclaim  oneself  satisfied  with  evidence  that 
is  less  than  sufficient  to  enforce  conviction.  It  seems  the 
dictate  of  prudence  to  concede  that  at  present  it  is  diffi- 
cult, practically  impossible,  to  fix  the  limits  of  species; 
more  difficult  still  to  fix  those  of  genera;  simple  folly  to 
attempt  to  determine  those  of  tribes  and  families.  We  may 
console  ourselves,  however,  with  the  fact  that  a  system 
of  faith  which  outlived  the  scientific  dictum  of  the  fixity 
of  the  earth  can  easily  display  vitality  sufficient,  if  neces- 

*  In  Corsica,  horses,  dogs,  and  other  animals  become  beautifully  spotted.  It 
is  also  said  that  sheep  when  taken  to  the  West  Indies  lose  their  wool  and  become 
covered  with  hair:  in  Guinea,  they  undergo  such  changes  as  to  bear  little  re- 
semblance, except  in  bleat,  to  those  in  Europe,  the  wool  giving  place  to  black 
or  brown  hair.  Dogs  taken  to  the  mountains  of  India  are  said  to  become  cov- 
ered with  wool.  In  Bceotia  the  herds  are  generally  yellow,  in  the  Roman 
Campagna  uniformly  gray,  in  other  parts  of  Italy  commonly  red.  The  camel's 
hump,  as  that  of  the  Indian  cow,  is  supposed  to  have  arisen  from  a  fatty  de- 
posit in  consequence  of  exposure  to  heat,  being  a  deviation,  it  is  asserted,  from 
the  original  type.  European  dogs,  taken  to  foreign  countries,  have  been  known 
to  degenerate  greatly,  the  ears  becoming  long  and  stiff,  the  bark  turning  into  a 
hideous  howl. 


34  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

sary,  to  survive  even  after  the  doctrine  of  the  immutability 
of  species  has  been  reverently  laid  away  in  the  roomy 
receptacle  of  perished  beliefs.  We  shall  only  be  forced  to 
acknowledge  that  the  permanence  of  species  is  a  doctrine 
which  is  in  no  sense  needed  for  the  defence  of  Scripture. 
Whilst  it  would  be  presumptuous  to  pronounce  the 
theory  baseless,  it  would  be  no  less  so  to  affirm  that  it 
satisfactorily  explains  all  the  phenomena;  it  would  in  fact 
be  to  array  oneself  against  able  reasoners  who  oppose  it, 
not  on  theological  grounds,  but  on  scientific.  Professor 
Agassiz  says,  "  I  wish  to  enter  my  earnest  protest  against 
the  transmutation  theory."  Even  Darwin  concedes,  with 
a  frankness  characteristic  of  his  writings,  "  The  transi- 
tional forms,  joining  living  and  extinct  species,  not  being 
found — the  sudden  manner  in  which  several  groups  of 
species  first  appear  in  European  formations — the  almost 
entire  absence,  as  at  present  known,  of  formations  rich  in 
fossils  beneath  the  Cambrian  strata — are  undoubtedly 
difficulties  of  the  most  serious  nature.  We  see  this  in 
the  fact  that  the  most  eminent  palaeontologists,  namely, 
Cuvier,  Agassiz,  Barrande,  Pictet,  Falconer,  E.  Forbes, 
etc.,  and  all  our  greatest  geologists,  as  Lyell,  Murchison, 
Sedgwick, etc.,  have  unanimously,  often  vehemently,  main- 
tained the  immutability  of  species."  Again:  "Authors  of 
the  highest  eminence  seem  to  be  fully  satisfied  with  the 
view  that  each  species  has  been  independently  created."* 

*  Haeckel,  who  in  the  preface  of  his  work  entitled,  The  Evolution  of  Alan, 
expresses  great  contempt  for  so-called  revelations  and  for  "  the  black  mischiev- 
ous host  [the  defenders  of  Scripture]  against  whom  modern  society  has  at  last 
taken  up  the  struggle  for  culture,"  sees  fit  to  indulge  in  the  following  empty- 
boast:—  "  When  in  1873,  the  grave  closed  over  1  the  last  great 
upholder  of  the  constancy  of  species  and  of  miraculous  creation,  the  dogma  of 
the  constancy  of  species  came  to  an  end,  and  the  contrary  assumption— the 
assertion  that  all  the  various  species  descended  from  common  ancestral  forms— 
now  no  longer  encounters  serious  difficulty." 


EVOLUTION.  35 

At  present,  however,  it  is  perhaps  safest  to  concede 
that  the  permanent  and  complete  immutability  of  species 
has  not  been  proved:  neither  has  mutability  been  proved. 

In  respect  to  this  question,  as  to  many  others,  it  is 
wise  to  permit  the  mind  to  remain  in  suspense.  It  is 
easy  to  err.  Leibnitz  pronounced  Newton's  theory  of 
gravitation  subversive  of  natural  religion.  Until  a  com- 
paratively recent  date  two  hypotheses  in  reference  to  the 
nature  of  light  claimed  the  suffrages  of  the  learned.  The 
emission  theory,  though  for  a  long  time  vigorously  de- 
fended by  a  majority  of  naturalists,  has  given  place  to  the 
undulatory.  A  small  minority  of  reasoners  won  the  vic- 
tory. The  adoption  of  the  wave  theory  of  light  soon  led 
to  the  hypothesis  of  the  correlation  and  transmutability 
of  light,  heat,  electricity,  and  magnetism.  This  hypoth- 
esis, after  running  the  gauntlet  of  an  incessant  fire  is 
now  generally  adopted.  The  nebular  hypothesis,  though 
strong  objections  have  been  urged  against  it,  many  of 
which  are  as  yet  unanswered,  is  now  accepted  as  harmon- 
izing accepted  facts  into  a  probable  and  consistent  whole. 

Christianity,  notwithstanding  the  accumulation  of  co- 
gent arguments  and  in  face  of  the  affirmation  boastingly 
made,  "The  Bible  is  refuted,"  can  well  afford  to  wait  till 
its  opponents  have  become  reasonably  well  united  upon 
an  accurately  defined  position.  Till  this  measure  of  una- 
nimity is  secured,  we  are  not  called  upon  to  decide 
whether  we  will  surrender  the  Mosaic  account,  adopt  a 
new  interpretation  thereof,  or  undertake  a  refutation  of 
the  theory.  Why  should  we  waste  our  energies  upon  an 
imaginary  foe  whilst  the  mailed  warriors  of  sin  are  con- 
fronting us  ? 


CHAPTER  II. 

IS    IT    ATHEISM? 

SINCE  then  the  term  evolution  is  restricted  in  meaning 
to  the  production  of  new  forms  of  matter,  or  new  living 
organisms,  the  question  arises,  Is  evolution  necessarily 
atheistic  ?  The  theist  is  not  called  upon  to  prove  that 
it  may  not  assume  an  atheistic  form;  nor  to  deny  that  in 
the  hands  of  some  of  its  advocates  it  is  decidedly  hostile 
to  the  teachings  of  Scripture.  He  is  merely  called  upon 
to  decide  whether  evolution  proper,  aside  from  its  unne- 
cessary concomitants,  is  essentially  atheistic;  whether 
there  is  such  an  array  of  well-established  facts,  as  to 
preclude  the  possibility  of  belief  in  some  theistic  form  of 
the  theory.  May  he  not  accept  evolution  while  still 
retaining  confidence  in  God's  Word  ?  May  he  not 
announce  himself  an  evolutionist  without  conceding  that 
man  has  been  evolved  from  a  moneron  ?  If  he  so  elects, 
is  he  not  at  liberty  to  maintain  that  evolution  is  a  pos- 
sible explanation  of  a  large  class  of  phenomena,  while 
he  still  maintains  that  it  cannot  account  for  man's 
origin,  for  the  origination  of  plant-life,  for  the  genesis 
of  animal  organisms,  for  the  origin  of  matter  ? 

While  conceding  that  evolution  may  be  an  adequate 
cause  for  the  production  of  new  organisms  from  pre- 
existing forms,  may  he  not  discover  a  solution  of  many 
questions  to  which  teleology  has  as  yet  rendered  no 
satisfactory  solution  ?     Indeed,  is    it    not    possible   that 


IS   IT   ATHEISM?  37 

he  will  find  evolution  an  efficient  instrumentality  in 
strengthening  the  foundations  of  Revealed  Religion  ? 
We  confidently  believe  he  may.  This,  Henry  Drum- 
mond,  in  his  Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual  World,  has 
made  apparent. 

Most  of  our  readers,  probably,  are  prepared  to  believe 
that  the  objections  to  the  theory  in  question  are  scientific 
rather  than  theological.  They  are  disposed,  no  doubt, 
to  concur  in  judgment  with  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  and  to 
reiterate  his  affirmation,  "  It  [the  development  hy- 
pothesis] is  not  in  itself  inconsistent  with  the  theistic 
argument,  or  with  belief  in  the  ultimate  agency  and 
directing  power  of  a  creative  mind.  This  is  clear,  since 
we  never  think  of  any  difficulty  in  reconciling  that  belief 
with  our  knowledge  of  the  ordinary  laws  of  animal  and 
vegetable  reproduction."  If  it  could  be  proved  that  new 
species,  as  well  as  individuals,  are  produced  by  being 
born,  it  does  not  diminish,  but  rather  increase  the  neces- 
sity of  admitting  the  existence  of  an  Infinite  Intelligence 
as  the  cause  of  all  we  witness  in  nature. 

The  word  "create"  is  susceptible  of  three  significa- 
tions. I.  It  may  mean  to  bring  into  being  by  the  simple 
exercise  of  power,  without  pre-existing  material  and  with- 
out process — absolute  creation.  In  this  sense  none  but 
God  can  create.  Did  He  originate  the  earth  as  it  now  is 
from  nothingness,  or  did  He  simply  create  the  materials 
and  the  forces  which  produced  it  ?  Did  He,  from  non- 
entity, call  into  being  the  different  species  of  plants  and 
animals,  or  did  He  make  preparation  for  their  production 
by  creating  one  or  more  primordial  forms  capable  of 
evolving  all  living  organisms  ?  Did  He  simply  create  an 
atom  of  matter  capable  of  evolving  a  universe  ?  If  scien- 
tists should  succeed  in  proving  that  the  universe,  with  its 
millions   of  living   beings,  has   been    developed   from  a 


3S  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

single  atom,  they  will  not  have  laid  an  immovable  foun- 
dation for  atheism  until  they  have  proved  that  that  atom 
needed  no  Creator.  2.  It  may  mean  to  bring  into  being, 
through  the  agency  of  secondary  causes  and  under  estab- 
lished laws,  that  which  did  not  previously  exist — deriva- 
tive creation.  Were  the  different  species  of  plants  and 
animals  evolved,  independent  of  a  direct  and  immediate 
divine  agency,  or  is  evolution  simply  the  mode  of  Divine 
operation  ?  3.  It  may  mean  to  fashion.  Did  successive 
species  arise  in  the  absolute  creation  of  new  germs  of  life, 
or  did  Divine  energy  simply  invest  pre-existing  forces  of 
life  with  new  forms  ? 

These  commands — "Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass, 
the  herb  yielding  seed,  and  the  fruit-tree  yielding  fruit 
after  his  kind,  whose  seed  is  in  itself,"  "  Let  the  earth 
bring  forth  the  living  creature  after  his  kind,  cattle,  and 
creeping  thing,  and  beast  of  the  earth  after  his  kind" — 
are  apparently  an  emphatic  assertion  that  God  created 
all  the  living  beings  that  have  peopled  the  earth.  To 
say  the  least  the  interpretation  which  assumes  that  God 
imparted  to  organisms  the  potentiality  to  evolve  new 
forms  is  as  natural  as  the  assumption  that  the  pas- 
sages were  meant  to  teach  that  no  species  has  arisen, 
or  can  arise,  except  by  the  absolute  exercise  of  Divine 
sovereignty. 

If  then  it  shall  hereafter  be  proved  that  instead  of 
creating  species  God  merely  created,  as  Darwin  thinks, 
at  most  not  more  than  three  or  four  cells  susceptible  to 
the  influence  of  light,  heat,  and  electricity,  and  capable  of 
producing  all  the  species  of  plants  and  animals  that  exist 
or  have  existed,  it  certainly  does  not  follow  that  the 
foundations  of  belief  in  the  being  of  God  are  destroyed. 
Professor  Huxley  says:  "It  is  necessary  to  remark  that 
there  is  a  wider  teleology,  which  is  not  touched  by  the 


IS   IT  ATHEISM?  39 

doctrine  of  evolution,  but  is  actually  based  upon  the 
fundamental  proposition  of  evolution." 

Apparently,  one  chief  reason  why  the  theory  in  ques- 
tion has  been  considered  atheistical  is  because  most  of 
its  advocates,  like  Darwin,  have  persisted  in  attributing 
the  power  of  originating  new  species  to  some  supernat- 
ural and  self-existent  energy  resident  in  pre-existing  spe- 
cies. They  have  seemed  resolutely  determined  to  account 
for  every  modification  without  assuming  the  existence 
of  any  power  out  of  or  above  nature,  either  during  the 
transformation  or  at  the  origin  of  the  parent  forms. 

Whilst  some  are  endeavoring  to  destroy  belief  in  the 
Mosaic  account,  and  to  subvert,  if  possible,  the  founda- 
tions of  a  theistic  conception  of  the  universe,  others  are 
laboring,  with  commendable  assiduity,  in  accumulating 
arguments  fitted  to  prove  that  there  is  nothing  in  evolu- 
tion which  conflicts  with  Scripture  and  no  statement  in 
the  revealed  account  of  creation  which  militates  against 
the  theory  of  development.  Mivart  says,  "  Naturalists 
generally  assume  that  God  acts  in  and  by  the  various 
laws  of  nature."  And  this  is  equivalent  to  acknowledg- 
ing the  doctrine  of  "  derivative  creation."  With  very  few 
exceptions,  none  deny  such  Divine  concurrence.  The 
Duke  of  Argyll  says  in  his  Reign  of  Law,  "  There  is 
nothing  in  religion  incompatible  with  the  belief  that  all 
exercises  of  God's  power,  whether  ordinary  or  extraordin- 
ary, are  effected  through  the  instrumentality  of  means — 
that  is,  by  the  instrumentality  of  natural  laws  brought 
out,  as  it  were,  and  used  for  a  Divine  purpose."  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  affirms,  "  The  more  purely  a  mechanist  the 
speculator  is,  the  more  firmly  does  he  assume  a  primor- 
dial molecular  arrangement,  of  which  all  the  phenomena 
of  the  universe  are  the  consequences;  and  the  more  com- 
pletely thereby  is  he    at    the  mercy   of  the   teleologist 


40  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

who  can  always  defy  him  to  prove  that  this  primordial 
molecular  arrangement  was  not  intended  to  evolve  the 
phenomena  of  the  universe."  Owen  says,  "  Organisms 
may  be  evolved  in  orderly  succession,  stage  after  stage, 
towards  a  foreseen  goal,  and  the  broad  features  of  the 
course  may  still  show  the  unmistakable  impress  of 
Divine  volition." 

Evidently,  progressive  development  is  not  neces- 
sarily hostile  to  theism,  nor  to  any  statement  contained 
in  Scripture.  The  volume  of  nature,  we  may  be  sure, 
contains  no  record  inconsistent  with  a  revelation  direct 
from  the  Author  of  nature.  There  may  be  some  slight 
degree  of  inappropriateness  in  applying  the  term  "crea- 
tion "  to  those  organisms  which  were  only  potentially 
called  into  being,  but  is  there  less  inappropriateness  in 
employing  the  term  "  evolution  "  unless  we  concede  that 
what  was  evolved  must  have  been  originally  resident  in 
primordial  forms  ?  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  affirmed 
that  the  power  of  originating  new  species  was  not  im- 
parted to  parent  germs,  then,  evidently,  the  term  "cre- 
ation," as  applied  to  this  gradual,  ill-defined  and  causeless 
process,  is  as  accurate  as  the  term  "  evolution  ":  nay,  more 
so,  for  it  does  not  leave  the  mind  groping  for  a  cause 
adequate  to  the  production  of  such  mysterious  effects. 

To  prove  the  possible  or  actual  descent  of  species  from 
pre-existing  forms  by  insensibly  fine  gradations  during 
protracted  periods  of  time  is  one  thing;  to  disprove 
theism  is  another.  "  The  discoveries  of  science,"  says 
Laplace,  "throw  final  causes  further  back":  who  can 
legitimately  affirm  that  they  lead  logically  to  atheism  ? 
Do  they  destroy  the  argument  for  the  being  of  God 
founded  upon  the  evidence  of  design  in  the  works  of 
nature  ?  Do  they  even  weaken  the  reasoning  ?  Cer- 
tainly this  has  not  been  proved. 


IS    IT  ATHEISM?  41 

Of  an  efficient  cause  there  are  three  views  which 
are  at  once  philosophical  and  theistic.  I.  The  action 
of  the  First  Cause  may  be  immediate,  direct,  constant, 
and  though  diversified,  uniformly  according  to  certain 
laws.  2.  Forces  previously  communicated  may  be 
occasionally  arrested  and  direct  action  engrafted  upon 
the  system,  new  forces  being  imparted  and  unforeseen 
results  produced.  3.  Matter  at  its  creation  may  be  en- 
dowed with  forces  which  produce  all  the  phenomena 
as  the  successive  centuries  roll  by.  Until  we  are 
forced  to  surrender  each  of  these  citadels  we  need  not 
capitulate. 

The  new  theories  have  not  ''evolved"  a  new  issue 
between  the  atheist  and  the  theist.  The  issue  still  is, 
as  it  always  has  been,  whether  organic  nature  is  the 
result  of  design  or  of  chance.  Does  the  adoption  of 
"  evolution "  affect  the  doctrine  of  final  causes  ?  Is 
Darwinism  incompatible  with  the  idea  of  design  in  the 
universe  ?  Its  author  rejects  spontaneous  generation. 
His  hypothesis  has  to  do,  not  with  the  cause  of  the 
phenomena,  but  with  the  mode  of  their  manifestation, 
thus  leaving  the  question  of  design  untouched.  Are  we 
to  conclude  that  the  diversification  of  organic  forms, 
consequent  upon  the  struggle  for  existence  or  upon  other 
secondary  causes,  excludes  the  possibility  of  design  ? 
Certainly  not.  Unless  an  evolutionist  affirms  that  the 
causes  to  which  he  refers  changes  are  self-sufficient,  he  is 
not  open  to  the  charge  of  atheism.  For  him  to  make 
any  such  affirmation  would  be  imprudent,  not  merely 
because  the  statement  may  be  incapable  of  proof,  but 
because  a  theistic  view  will  in  measure  save  him  from  the 
necessity  of  accounting  for  the  absence  of  intermediate 
forms:  for  if  the  transformations  occur  accompanied  by- 
design  there  will  of  course  be  no  purposeless  transitional 


42  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

varieties;  no  senseless  productions  of  fortuity,  born  but 
to  suffer,  and  existing  but  to  perish. 

To  concede,  as  has  sometimes  been  done,  that  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  destroys  the  foundations  of  the 
teleological  argument  for  the  being  of  God,  leaves 
no  alternative  but  an  unqualified  denial  of  the  the- 
ory, and  a  denunciation  of  it  as  unscriptural  and  athe- 
istic. To  brand  scientists  as  "infidels,"  "unbelievers," 
"materialists,"  "atheists,"  is  as  prejudicial  to  religion 
as  it  is  to  science.  There  is  no  argument  in  opprobrious 
epithets. 

The  wisdom  of  squarely  arraying  ourselves  against 
such  a  body  of  men  is  questionable,  especially  when  our 
own  ranks  are  divided  and  the  disaffected  are  increasing 
in  number.  It  is  prudent  not  to  assume  a  hostile  atti- 
tude when  in  the  judgment  of  able  defenders  of  Scriptural 
truth  it  is  as  probable  that  all  extinct  and  all  living 
beings  have  been  developed  by  natural  laws  of  genera- 
tion from  pre-existing  forms  as  that  each  species  owes  its 
existence  to  a  single  creative  fiat.  Is  it  not  wiser  to 
examine  whether  it  is  possible  to  save  the  argument 
from  design,  leaving  our  opponent  to  expend  his  ener- 
gies in  amassing  materials  which  may  be  of  service  to  us 
when  we  shall  have  driven  him  routed  from  the  field  ? 
If  the  theory  of  evolution  is  fatal  to  teleology  the  cuius 
probandi  rests  upon  the  evolutionists.  They  may  find  it 
a  burden  too  heavy  to  bear;  weightier  than  the  estab- 
lishment of  their  theory  upon  a  scientific  basis. 

If  evolution  is  true,  not  all  is  lost;  nay,  perhaps  some- 
thing is  gained.  Is  the  assumption  that  there  is  a  ma- 
terial connection  between  the  members  of  a  series  of  organ- 
ized beings  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  this  connection 
is  the  result  of  a  force  imparted  at  creation  ?  Is  there 
any  greater  difficulty  in    concluding  that  the  theory  in 


IS   IT  ATHEISM?  43 

question  is  as  compatible  with  a  theistic  view  of  the  uni- 
verse as  is  the  theory  of  gravitation,  or  the  nebular  hy- 
pothesis ?  Are  those  scientists  to  be  pronounced  athe- 
ists who  prove  that  heat,  light,  electricity,  magnetism,  and 
even  mechanical  power  are  transformations  of  one  and 
the  same  force  ?  This,  which  many  reasoners  concede 
has  been  established,  and  which  is  regarded  as  one  of  the 
greatest  triumphs  of  science,  is  not  looked  upon  as  athe- 
istical. Why  then  regard  "  evolution  "  as  atheism  ?  If 
animals  and  plants  have  been  endowed  with  the  power  of 
evolving  new  species  after  the  lapse  of  centuries,  the  ar- 
gument from  design  is  not  weaker  than  when  it  did  noble 
service  in  the  hands  ofPaley;  for  it  cannot  be  proved  that 
this  complicated  series  of  events  results  independent  of  a 
continued  divine  agency.  When  it  shall  be  shown  that 
the  eye,  with  its  marvels  of  ingenious  mechanism,  has 
been  constructed  under  the  operation  of  natural  selection, 
the  struggle  for  life,  continued  variation,  or  the  survival 
of  the  fittest,  s  )me  future  Paley  will  find  no  great  diffi- 
culty in  proving  that  the  Creator  has  left  upon  His  handi- 
work innumerable  traces  of  intelligent  design.  Suppose 
two  organisms,  A  and  Z,  possess  evidence  of  design,  will 
the  subsequent  discovery  that  there  are  intermediate  or- 
ganisms for  every  letter  of  the  alphabet,  each  owing  its 
existence  to  an  immediate  ancestor,  weaken  the  evidence 
of  design  ?  If  the  eye  may  be  developed  from  a  sensitive 
nerve — the  process  of  formation  requiring  ages  ere  it 
reaches  completion — who  is  logician  sufficient  to  prove 
that  it  was  neither  a  part  of  the  original  purpose,  nor 
the  result  of  a  co-operating  Divine  Intelligence  ?  If  the 
hand  may  be  evolved  from  a  rudimentary  hoof,  through 
numberless  living  beings,  each  succeeding  organism  pre- 
senting evidence  of  slight  improvement  towards  the 
consummation,  who  has  a  legitimate  foundation  for  the 


44  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

assertion  that  this  state  of  things  cannot  co-exist  with 
design  ?  If  the  Creator  imparted  this  power  to  the 
original  organism,  or  if  this  is  the  mode  of  construc- 
tion which  in  His  perfect  wisdom  He  chooses  to  adopt, 
who  will  presume  to  assert  that  evidences  of  design 
are  obliterated  ? 

It  is  true  that  Darwinism  by  its  apparent  substitution 
of  Natural  Selection  for  design  seems  to  have  taken  a  step 
towards  atheism;  for  if  intelligence  is  unnecessary  after 
certain  primordial  forms  are  in  existence,  we  are  prompted 
to  ask,  Why  is  it  necessary  to  the  origination  of  these 
infinitesimal  germs  ?  Some  bold  speculator  may  prove, 
as  Haeckel  thinks  he  has,  that  these  were  evolved  by  nat- 
ural laws  from  inorganic  matter;  a  still  bolder  speculator 
may  affirm  that  inorganic  matter  is  eternal  and  self-exis- 
ent.  That,  however,  which  passes  under  the  name  of 
Darwinism  is  not  evolution,  strictly  speaking;  but  a  mode 
of  evolution;  and  if  we  shall  be  forced  ultimately  to  con- 
cede that  Natural  Selection  is  the  cause  of  variation,  and 
not  simply  the  mode,  will  it  be  possible  to  resist  the  con- 
viction that  there  must  have  been  design  in  its  employ- 
ment ?  Besides,  if  it  can  be  proved  that  an  original  germ 
of  life  was  evolved  from  matter,  we  are  not  compelled  to 
adopt  the  revolting  atheism  of  Haeckel.  The  efficient 
cause  is  simply  removed  to  a  greater  distance — run  further 
up  the  almost  infinite  chain. 

To  prove  that  all  the  changes  which  have  character- 
ized the  animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms  have  occurred 
without  the  intervention  or  directing  agency  of  an  Intel- 
ligent Cause  will  be  difficult;  and  when  this  is  accom- 
plished, the  argument  from  design  will  be  in  no  degree 
weakened.  On  the  other  hand,  if  these  variations  are  of 
the  nature  of  origination  and  occur  under  the  guidance 
of  Divine  Omniscience,  secondary  causes  being  employed 


IS   IT   ATHEISM?  45 

to  produce  them,  there  is  an  increase  of  strength  imparted 
to  the  teleological  argument.  Consequently  we  are  at 
liberty  to  assert  that  if  Darwinism  should  become  an  es- 
tablished theory,  if  evolution  in  its  widest  sense  should 
win  for  itself  an  impregnable  position  in  science,  there  is 
no  just  cause  for  fear.  Unlike  Othello,  the  theologian's 
occupation  will  not  be  gone.  He  is  a  personage  whom 
the  human  family  could  not  spare,  even  if  scientists  should 
succeed  in  forcing  him  to  acknowledge  a  nearer  rela- 
tionship to  the  simial  family  than  his  inherited  notions 
permit  him  at  present  to  fancy. 

Pictet  says,  "  Darwin's  theory  accords  very  well  with 
the  facts  of  comparative  anatomy  and  zoology — comes  in 
admirably  to  explain  unity  of  composition  of  organisms, 
also  to  explain  rudimentary  and  representative  organs, 
and  the  natural  series  of  genera  and  species — equally  cor- 
responds with  many  palaeontological  data — agrees  well 
with  the  specific  resemblances  which  exist  between  two 
successive  fauna,  with  the  parallelism  which  is  some- 
times observed  between  the  series  of  palaeontological  suc- 
cession and  embryonal  development." 

Perhaps  the  theologians  of  the  future  may  discover  that 
evolution  accords  singularly  well  with  classes  of  facts 
previously  inexplicable.  It  may  possibly  be  viewed  as 
harmonizing  purpose  and  the  adaptation  of  means  to  the 
proposed  end,  as  explaining  the  unity  of  type  which  pre- 
vails under  similar  conditions  of  life,  as  the  complement 
of  the  geological  theory  which  maintains  that  there  is  no 
absolute  break  from  the  present  era  back  to  the  azoic,  as 
furnishing  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  gradual  and 
steady  progression  within  each  class  and  order,  as  accoun- 
ting for  the  unexplained  fact  that  the  species  of  the  ter- 
tiary period  are  found  occupying  the  same  regions  as  their 
descendants  now  occupy,  as    encouraging  the  assertion 


46  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

that  there  is  evident  design  in  the  existence  of  rudimen- 
tary organs,  as  affording  a  solution  of  the  singular  fact 
that  there  is  a  natural  series  of  tribes,  families,  genera, 
species,  varieties.  Perhaps  it  may  aid  also  in  explaining 
the  fact  that  propagation  by  budding  or  offshoots  ex- 
tends through  the  lower  order  of  animals  as  well  as  plants, 
that  between  partheogenesis  and  sexual  reproduction 
there  is  a  curious  and  intimate  series  of  gradations,  that 
individuality  is  not  attained  by  a  single  leap,  that  sut- 
ures which  in  the  skulls  of  mammals  are  supposed  to  have 
been  designed  to  aid  parturition  should  exist  also  in  birds 
and  reptiles  where  their  presence  is  certainly  no  aid  to 
birth,  that  individuals  and  even  entire  races  should  exist 
under  conditions  which  evidently  might  be  modified  to 
advantage. 

It  may  be  said,  however,  in  refutation  of  the  reasoning 
that  evolution,  if  established,  would  strengthen  the  argu- 
ment from  design,  that  of  the  millions  of  possible  variations 
only  a  few  are  selected  which  are  improvements  from  a 
vast  number  which  are  not  improvements,  but  perhaps  de- 
generations. To  this  it  may  be  replied — of  the  millions 
of  rain-drops  that  leave  the  ocean  only  a  few  reach  their 
intended  destination.  Is  there  no  design  ?  Of  the  pol- 
len that  is  formed  each  year,  for  the  purpose  of  perfect- 
ing seeds  in  plants,  only  a  small  part  attains  the  end  of 
its  creation.  We  do  not  hence  conclude  that  its  exist- 
ence is  purposeless.  Myriads  of  fish-ova  float  in  the 
water — only  a  few,  comparatively,  become  fish.  Each 
peach  is  the  representative  of  perhaps  thousands  of  blos- 
soms which  came  to  nought.  The  waste  of  nature  is 
enormous — seeds,  eggs,  germs,  infant  life.  The  organisms 
which  perish  ere  they  commence  individual  development 
vastly  outnumber  those  which  leave  successors.  De- 
struction is  the  rule:  life  the  exception.     Not  one  prob- 


IS   IT   ATHEISM?  47 

ably  in  ten  million  comes  to  perfection.  Was  the  design 
destruction,  or  was  there  no  design  ?  Must  disteleology 
be  allowed  to  take  the  place  of  teleology  ?  The  light  of 
the  sun  is  diffused  in  all  directions — only  a  small  portion 
strikes  the  planets.  Is  purposelessness  written  on  the 
leaves  of  nature's  great  book  ?  Why  this  immense 
waste  everywhere  ?  Our  present  teleology  can  give  no 
answer.  The  teleology  which  will  be  possible,  if  evo- 
lution becomes  an  established  theory,  shall  be  able  to 
answer, — Unless  there  were  competing  multitudes  there 
could  be  no  struggle  for  existence;  if  there  were  no 
struggle  for  existence,  there  could  be  no  natural  selec- 
tion; if  there  were  no  natural  selection,  there  could  be 
no  such  thing  as  the  survival  of  the  fittest;  if  there  were 
no  survival  of  the  fittest,  there  could  be  no  improvement 
in  species,  no  new  varieties  resulting  from  adaptation 
to  changed  circumstances. 

The  new  teleology  may  prove  more  successful  than 
the  old.  The  theistic  view  of  nature  may  have  a  more 
secure  foundation  than  it  now  has.  Design  under  exist- 
ing theories  leaves  more  unexplained  than  it  explains 
— failures  of  provision,  waste  of  resources,  abortive  or- 
gans, the  perfection  of  certain  organs  in  some  species 
whilst  only  partially  developed  in  some  and  functionless 
in  others,  the  presence  of  hair  on  the  human  body  (hair, 
in  unclothed  animals,  was  a  necessary  covering),  the 
existence  of  members  having  at  present  no  physiolog- 
ical significance — as  the  membranes,  muscles,  and  car- 
tilages in  and  about  the  human  ear  (of  use  in  animals 
which  move  the  ears  freely),  the  crescent-shaped  fold  at 
the  corner  of  the  eye  (corresponding  to  the  nictitating 
membrane  in  sharks,  and  to  the  third  eyelid  in  birds 
and  some  ruminant  animals),  the  free  projecting  tail  of 
the  human  embryo  at   a  certain    stage   in   its   develop- 


48  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

merit,*  unused  muscles  beneath  the  skin  (corresponding 
to  those  by  which  animals  wrinkle  the  skin  to  remove 
flies),  useless  ducts  in  the  vascular  system  (active  blood- 
vessels in  some  animals),  organs  in  one  sex  which  are 
only  rudimentary  in  the  other,  as  seed-ducts  in  females, 
ova-ducts,  uterus,  mammae  and  mammillary  glands  in 
males.  If  it  shall  ever  be  proved  that  man  is  descended 
from  apes,  we  shall  possess  the  means  of  explaining 
these  and  similar  facts.  At  present  they  are  an  enigma. 
Though  a  theistic  view  of  evolution  is  possible,  we  are 
certainly  far  from  affirming  that  no  evolutionists  present 
it  as  a  theory  which  is  decidedly  atheistical.  They  cer- 
tainly do.  Haeckel,  after  conducting  the  reader  through 
a  lengthy  discussion — fn  which  the  words  ontogenesis, 
ontogeny,  phylogenesis,  phylogeny,  anthropogenesis,  an- 
thropogeny,  palingenesis,  kenogenesis,  etc.,t  become 
inexplicably  commingled  with  insults  hurled  at  those 
who  accept  time-honored  beliefs — expects  the  bewildered 
reader  to  accept  atheism  and  disteleology.  He  seems  to 
think  that  he  has  forced  even  reluctance  to  accept  his 
assertions:  "  The  descent  of  man  from  the  lower  animals 

*  "  The  history  of  the  germ,"  says  Haeckel,  "  is  an  epitome  of  the  history 
of  descent:  the  series  of  forms  through  which  the  individual  organism  passes 
during  its  progress  from  the  egg-cell  to  its  fully  developed  state,  is  a  brief  com- 
pressed reproduction  of  the  long  series  of  forms  through  which  the  animal 
ancestors  of  that  organism  have  passed  from  the  earliest  periods  of  so-called 
organic  creation  down  to  the  present  time." — Natural  History  of  Creation,  p.  6. 

f  Ontogenesis,  the  origin  of  living  organisms. 

Ontogeny,  germ-history,  an  account  of  the  changes  undergone  by  germs 
prior  to  their  entrance  upon  individual  existence,  including  a  history  of  the 
human  egg. 

Phylogenesis,  the  origin  of  tribal  germs — species. 

Phylogeny,  tribal  history,  a  history  of  the  transmission  of  germ-forms  from 
an  indefinitely  remote  past 

Anthropogenesis,  the  origin  of  man— an  ape  ancestry. 

Anthropogeny,  a  history  of  man's  descent  from  a  simple  cell,  through  mo 
nera,  worms,  etc.— twenty-one  links— to  that  degree  of  development  to  which 


IS    IT  ATHEISM?  49 

is  a  special  deductive  law,  necessarily  following  from  the 
general  deductive  law  of  the  entire  doctrine  of  descent:" 
"These  sure  proofs  [of  man's  descent  from  apes]  have 
been  for  some  time  available  to  all  who  would  open  their 
eyes  to  see  them:"  "  Many  millions  of  years  must  indeed 
have  elapsed  while  the  most  perfect  vertebrate  organism, 
man,  gradually  developed  from  the  primeval  one-celled 
ancestral  organism.  The  opponents  of  the  development 
theory,  who  regard  this  gradual  development  of  man 
from  lower  animal  forms,  and  his  original  descent  from  a 
one-celled  primitive  animal  as  incredible,  do  not  reflect 
that  the  very  same  marvel  actually  occurs  before  our  eyes 
in  the  short  space  of  nine  months  during  the  embry- 
onic development  of  each  human  individual. — The  same 
series  of  multivariously  diverse  forms,  through  which  our 
brute  ancestors  passed  in  the  course  of  many  millions 
of  years,  has  been  traversed  by  every  man  during  the  first 
forty  weeks  of  his  individual  existence  within  the  mater- 
nal body:"  "  The  human  body  includes  no  single  organ 
which  is  not  inherited  from  apes,  but  we  can  trace  the 
origin  down  to  lower  ancestral  grades:"  "  The  human 
mind  has  been  developed  with  and  as  the  function  of 
the  medullary  tube:"  "AM  phenomena  are  produced  by 
mechanical  causes,  not  by  prearranged,  purposive  causes:" 

phylogeny,  the  mechanical  cause  of  ontogeny,  has  evolved  him,  as  is  indicated 
by  ontogeny,  which  is  but  a  recapitulation  of -phylogeny. 

Palingenesis,  reproduction  of  forms,  inherited  evolution. 

Kenogenesis,  a  vitiation  of  the  history  of  forms,  or  vitiated  evolution. 

Biogeny,  a  history  of  organic  evolution,  biology  being  a  science  of  the  forces 
of  life  in  general. 

Heterotopy,  displacement  of  phenomena  affecting  place. 

Heterochrony,  displacement  of  phenomena  affecting  time. 

"  In  all  cases  the  duration  of  the  ontogeny  appears  infinitely  brief  when  com- 
pared with  the  enormous,  the  infinitely  long  period  during  which  the  phylogeny 
or  gradual  development  of  the  ancestral  series,  took  place."  "The  period  is 
measured  by  thousands  and  millions  of  years." 


50  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

"  There    is    no    such    thing-    as    free-will    in    the    usual 
sense." 

Fearing  his  readers  might  charge  him  with  entertain- 
ing materialistic  conceptions  of  the  universe,  he  assures 
them  that  his  views  are  as  far  removed  from  materialism 
as  they  are  from  spiritualism;  that  he  neither  pronounces 
vital  phenomena  effects  of  matter,  nor  of  motive  force; 
that  he  neither  regards  matter  as  preceding  force,  nor 
force  as  preceding  matter,  but  that  he  adopts  "  monism," 
which  can  as  little  believe  in  force  without  matter  as  in 
matter  without  force,  there  being  no  matter  which  does 
not  possess  force,  and  no  forces  which  are  dissevered 
from  matter — those  forces  which  produce  motion  being 
designated  active,  those  which  produce  equilibrium  being 
called  latent. 


CHAPTER    III. 

MAN'S  PHYSICAL  NATURE. 

HOW  does  the  foregoing  theory  stand  related  to  the 
origin  of  man's  physical  nature  ?  Does  it  furnish  a 
satisfactory  answer  to  the  question,  Whence  came  the 
human  body  ?  Is  this  garment  of  the  soul  the  result  of 
an  evolution  from  less  complex  organisms  ? 

The  theory,  however  successful  elsewhere,  is  a  con- 
spicuous failure  when  it  assays  the  task  of  explaining 
man's  origin.  To  affirm  that  the  human  family,  a  new 
species,  has  been  developed  by  the  transmutation  of 
previously  existing  species,  is  an  infelicitous  mode  of  ex- 
pression, it  being  difficult  to  assign  any  reason  why  the 
term  species  should  be  employed:  if  the  hypothesis  be 
true,  it  is  apparently  impossible  to  determine  when  the 
manifestation  of  the  old  specific  form  ceased  and  that 
of  the  new  began.  Why  say,  "Man's  progenitor  was 
some  species  of  monkey,"  if  the  latter  by  insensible  gra- 
dations glided  into  the  former  ?  This  destroys  the  idea 
of  species.  If  the  changes  pertain  to  individuals,  they 
cannot  be  considered  as  proving  the  mutation  of  species. 

Admitting  that  by  care  in  the  selection  of  individuals, 
a  few  more  feathers  can  be  developed  in  the  tail  of  a 
pigeon,  as  Darwin  succeeded  in  producing,  does  this 
prove  that  man  owes  his  origin  to  some  lower  organism  ? 
Conceding  that  the  lion  has  been  slightly  improved  dur- 
ing the  last  two  or  three  thousand  years  by  the  survival 


52  THEISM   AXD    EVOLUTION. 

of  the  fittest  or  by  the  inherent  power  of  species,  does  it 
follow  that  the  first  man  was  the  son  of  an  ape  ?  Ad- 
mitting that  mackerel  have  become  larger  and  better 
adapted  to  wage  warfare  with  their  enemies,  does  this 
furnish  any  evidence  that  the  moneron  was  the  primeval 
parent  of  the  human  family  ?  Does  it  even  prove  that 
mackerel  were  evolved  from  an  inferior  organism  ?  or 
that  they  will  eventually  evolve  a  new  and  improved 
organic  form  ? 

If  species  are  mutable,  why  do  we  fail  in  discovering 
evidences  that  changes  have  taken  place  during  the 
period  covered  by  history  ?  The  bee  has  been  industri- 
ously engaged  in  extracting  sweetness  from  flowers  since 
the  days  of  Aristotle.  The  ant,  ever  since  Solomon 
recommended  its  example  to  the  sluggard,  has  been 
practicing  building,  and  hoarding  provisions  against  a 
time  of  need.  There  is  no  evidence  that  either  has  ac- 
quired a  single  new  organ,  or  has  more  perfectly  devel- 
oped organs  previously  possessed  in  rudimentary  form, 
or  has  unfolded  new  instincts  from  potential  germs. 
Egypt,  in  its  mummies  as  well  as  in  its  paintings,  has 
preserved  for  us  a  museum  of  natural  history  whose  speci-l 
mens  were  collected  thirty  centuries  ago;  and  yet  in  no 
respect  do  they  differ  from  species  now  existing. 

We  are  asked  to  believe  that  the  ape-tribe  developed 
new  organs,  highly  intellectual  faculties,  and  even  moral 
perceptions;  and  yet,  though  man  has  been  striving  after 
new  powers  for  thousands  of  years,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  has  acquired  new  faculties,  or  developed  new  or- 
gans; not  one  single  channel  has  been  opened,  no  new 
perception  has  been  gained,  not  one  of  the  five  senses 
has  become  more  extended  in  its  range;  nay,  even  the 
simial  family  has  lost  the  power  of  improvement,  having 
remained  stationary  for  the  last  thirty  centuries.     Add 


MAN'S    PHYSICAL    NATURE.  53 

to  this  the  fact  that  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  all 
organisms  have  remained  substantially  the  same  since 
the  earliest  historical  period,  and  it  seems  incredible 
that  the  gorilla  should  be  the  ancestor  of  the  human 
family. 

It  is  assumed  that  the  ape-family,  and  every  species 
of  plants  and  animals,  possesses  an  innate  tendency  to 
improve;  this  is  sometimes  pronounced  "spontaneous," 
sometimes  it  is  called  "  an  accidental  variability."  The 
existence  of  the  law  has  not  been  proved,  however,  but 
assumed.  Are  we  not  justified  in  asserting, — The  exist- 
ence of  such  a  law  should  be  established  before  sweep- 
ing deductions  are  made  therefrom;  at  least  stronger 
arguments  should  be  presented  than  those  which  connect 
themselves  with  Natural  Selection,  which,  for  all  that 
appears  to  the  contrary,  may  be  nothing  more  than  an 
agency  which  accumulates  and  preserves  slight  incre- 
ments of  improvement,  but  is  powerless  in  producing 
them,  leaving  the  problem  of  favorable  variations  un- 
solved. Hypothesis,  unless  it  harmonizes  with  the  facts 
and  furnishes  a  consistent  and  reasonable  explanation, 
ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  having  attained  to  the 
dignity  of  a  theory. 

For  anything  that  has  been  satisfactorily  shown,  these 
improvements  may  be  due  to  reversion,  that  is,  the 
regain,  of  lost  characters.  The  struggle  for  existence, 
which  is  pronounced  severe,  may  cause  degeneration. 
Under  domestication,  or  under  more  favorable  conditions 
in  nature,  there  may  be  a  recovery  of  lost  qualities.  This 
explains  the  facts  as  well  as  Darwinism  explains  them, 
perhaps  better;  and  it  destroys  the  basis  of  the  assump- 
tion that  improvement  may  continue  indefinitely.  A 
limit  exists.  Darwin  admits  that  characters  which  have 
been  lost  may  lie  in  the  organism  for  thousands  of  gener- 


54  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

ations  with  their  powers  of  redevelopment  undiminished, 
and  that  under  favoring  circumstances  there  is  a  gradual 
and  constant  improvement,  an  approach  towards  the 
lost  type.*  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  neither  im- 
provement nor  the  preceding  degeneration  is  necessarily 
due  either  to  selection  or  to  an  innate  tendency.  Ad- 
vance may  result  from  the  presence  of  conditions  favora- 
ble to  improvement;  degeneration,  from  the  absence  of 
such  conditions.  Darwin  concedes  that  the  latter  has 
taken  place  on  a  very  extended  scale,  having  invaded 
every  known  species.  He  seems  even  to  have  concluded 
that  all  improvements  may  be  results  of  reversion. 

Nor  is  evidence  wanting  that  reversion  is  a  law  similar 
to  well  known  laws.  There  is  in  nature  the  power  of 
reparation,  even  to  the  extent  of  reproducing  a  lost  mem- 
ber. A  crystal,  when  one  of  its  edges  has  been  broken 
off,  if  placed  in  a  solution  similar  to  that  in  which  it 
was  first  formed,  will  reproduce  its  lost  edge,  repairing 
its  integrity.  Until  the  edge  is  reproduced  there  is  an 
imperfect  equilibrium  of  forces.  Would  it  be  correct 
to  say,  The  improvement  of  the  crystal  is  limitless  ? 

Since  this  progressive  development  is  a  virtual  de- 
struction of  species,  as  Darwin's  theory  of  pangenesis  is 
a  destruction  of  individuals,  it  seems  easier  to  accept  the 
Scriptural  account,  which,  however  distasteful,  is  appar- 
ently environed  with  fewer  difficulties. 

It  is  contended,  however,  that  long  periods  are  a 
necessary  factor  in  these  transmutations,  the  difficulties 
being  diminished  or  removed  by  the  assumption  of  an 
indefinite  period  through  which  improvements  have  been 
accumulating.     How  four  hundred  millions  of  years  could 

*  Origin  of  Species,  pp.  160-161.  He  affirms  on  page  161,  "It  must 
generally  be  left  doubtful  what  cases  are  reversions  to  a  formerly  existing  charac- 
ter, and  what  arc  new  and  analogous  variations." 


MAN'S    PHYSICAL    NATURE.  55 

aid  in  removing  the  difficulty  is  not  easy  to  see.  If  it 
has  not  been  proved  that  within  the  historical  era  any 
species  has  passed  beyond  the  barriers  which  separate 
it  from  allied  species,  there  is  assuredly  little  evidence 
that  the  mere  lapse  of  centuries  would  effect  any  marvel- 
ous transformations.  Moreover,  there  is  a  strong  proba- 
bility (quite  as  strong  as  the  presumption  that  species 
are  mutable)  that  the  earth  has  not  been  adapted  to 
animal  life  for  millions  of  years — probably  not  even  for  a 
million,  a  period  far  too  brief,  evolutionists  would  think, 
for  the  changes  which  have  occurred. 

In  order  to  account  for  the  phenomena,  the  theory  in 
question  is  under  the  necessity  of  attributing  an  almost 
prescient  intelligence  to  the  ape-family;  for  how  else 
shall  we  explain  the  development  of  human  organs 
during  their  incipient  stages  ?  And  even  the  highest 
intelligence  conceivable  seems  inadequate  to  account  for 
changes  which,  during  their  progress,  and  until  the  trans- 
formation was  nearly  or  quite  complete,  must  have  been 
positively  detrimental.  During  the  entire  period  that 
the  fore-feet  of  the  gorilla  were  developing  into  hands, 
he  must  have  been  less  perfectly  fitted  to  his  previous 
mode  of  life,  and  as  yet  but  ill  adapted  to  even  the  low- 
est savage-life.  In  like  manner,  it  is  nearly  impossible 
to  conceive  that  he  should  have  possessed  intelligence 
sufficient  to  perceive  the  advantages  ultimately  to  arise 
from  assuming  a  more  erect  position;  and  unless  he  fore- 
saw these  advantages,  and  in  fact  deliberately  decided 
on  present  self-denial  for  the  sake  of  advantages  to  his 
posterity,  we  are  forced  to  adopt  some  other  explanation 
quite  as  unreasonable,  chance  or  an  innate  power  uncon- 
sciously evincing  superior  intelligence.  Mr.  Darwin,  per- 
haps from  long  experience,  seems  able  to  conjure  up  a 
personal  principle  under  the  term,  "  Nature,"  which  is 


5G  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

assumed  to  possess  the  power  of  controlling  the  affairs 
of  the  animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms.  This  all-potent 
intelligence  refuses,  however,  to  come  at  the  bidding  of 
non-believers  in  evolution.  Through  what  agency  does 
unconscious  nature  operate  in  producing  results  which  so 
powerfully  remind  us  of  a  controlling  intelligence  ?  Has 
she  chosen  the  "survival  of  the  fittest"? — and  is  this 
an  instrumentality  so  well  adapted  to  the  improvement 
of  species  as  to  leave  upon  our  minds  the  settled  con- 
viction that  nature,  though  supposed  to  be  blind,  can 
exhibit  marvelous  intelligence  ?  Does  the  mere  survival 
of  the  fittest  insure  improvement  ?  We  think  not.  The 
expression  has  been  very  adroitly  chosen,  for  there  nat- 
urally slips  into  it  the  assumption  that  the  fittest  to  sur- 
vive are  an  advance  on  their  predecessors,  whereas  they 
may  be  the  same,  or  may  be  more  degenerate.  That 
the  fittest  to  survive  are  an  improvement  on  their  ances- 
tors, has  not  been  proved.  In  the  severe  struggle  for 
existence,  "more  individuals  being  born  than  can  possi- 
bly survive,"  can  the  fittest  do  anything  more  than  hold 
their  own  ?  Is  it  fair  to  assume  that  because  the  weakest 
perish,  therefore  the  others  are  an  improved  type  ?  A 
more  legitimate  inference  would  be  that  those  which 
survive  are  degenerate.  If  the  conditions  of  life  are  so 
severe  that  the  majority  of  the  individuals  succumb,  are 
they  not  so  severe  as  to  weaken  those  which  survive  ? 
The  Texan  cattle-raiser,  on  hearing  in  the  spring  that 
the  severity  of  the  winter  has  caused  the  death  of  nine- 
tenths  of  his  herd,  does  not  conclude  that  the  remaining 
one-tenth  has  been  improved  by  the  causes  which  de- 
stroyed the  rest.  If  carefully  housed  and  fed  the  ensuing 
year,  they  might  possibly  perpetuate  a  variety  slightly 
more  hardy — though  this  is  somewhat  doubtful,  and  if  it 
did  occur  it  certainly  could  not  be  legitimately  said  that 


MAN'S    PHYSICAL    NATURE.  57 

the  "survival  of  the  fittest"  was  the  efficient  cause; 
but  if  the  remnant  were  left  to  the  severe  struggle  for 
existence  which  is  going  on  in  nature,  it  is  evident  that 
their  survival,  far  from  carrying  with  it  an  implication  of 
improvement,  would  merely  justify  us  in  concluding  that 
the  more  weakened  and  the  more  degenerate,  or  the 
younger  and  the  older,  perished — the  less  weakened  and 
the  less  degenerate  survived.  The  causes  which  pro- 
duce the  survival  of  the  fittest,  evidently  tend  to  produce 
general  degeneration;  they  manifestly  have  no  efficiency 
in  causing  improvement.  It  has  not  even  been  shown 
that  the  very  best  individuals  which  any  species  can  pro- 
duce are  capable  of  self-improvement  if  left  to  the  hard 
conditions  of  life  to  which  they  are  exposed  when  not 
under  domestication.  They  frequently  degenerate.  Has 
there  been  a  sufficiently  extensive  generalization  to  jus- 
tify the  assertion  that  the  tendency  to  improve,  under 
such  circumstances,  is  more  potent  and  more  universal 
than  the  tendency  to  deteriorate  ?  Certainly  it  has  not 
been  proved  that  the  less  degenerate  go  on  improving 
till  a  new  species  originates. 

The  preponderance  of  probability  is  evidently  in  favor 
of  the  assumption  that  the  fittest  to  survive  are  them- 
selves a  degenerate  class.  Conditions  of  existence  which 
destroy  a  majority  of  the  individuals  of  a  species  must 
tend  to  weaken  the  survivors.  If  natural  selection, 
under  such  circumstances,  enables  them  to  hold  their 
own,  it  evidently  does  well.  When  summer  droughts 
are  so  severe  as  to  destroy  three-fourths  of  all  living 
vegetable  organisms,  the  remaining  one-fourth  is  not 
likely  to  be  above  the  normal  standard.  Hence,  that 
improvement  is  an  attendant  on  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence is  a  purely  gratuitous  assumption.  There  is  natural 
selection,  unquestionably;  but   it  occurs  under   circum- 


58  THEISM   AXD    EVOLUTION. 

stances  unfavorable  to  the  production  of  improved  varie- 
ties. The  hard  conditions  do  not  terminate  the  moment 
natural  selection  has  resulted. 

11  The  stronger  and  the  more  vigorous  survive."  Yes: 
but  the  stronger  and  the  more  vigorous  compared  with 
what  ? — with  the  individuals  which  perish  manifestly; 
but  it  is  assumed  that  they  are  the  stronger  and  the 
more  vigorous  compared  with  the  normal  condition 
of  the  species.  This,  however,  has  not  been  proved; 
and  until  that  is  done  the  inference  that  there  will  be 
an  improvement  in  the  species  is  an  unwarrantable 
assumption,  indeed,  it  is  tantamount  to  saying  that 
the  harder  the  conditions  of  life  the  greater  the 
improvement. 

Another  difficulty:  How  shall  we  account  for  the  fact 
that  from  an  indefinite  number  of  variations,  minute 
and  ill-defined  in  all  conceivable  directions,  and  having 
a  natural  tendency  to  destroy  one  another,  certain 
changes  should  become  so  well  established  as  to  remain 
permanent  marks  of  a  new  species  ?  Can  it  be  proved 
that  the  advances  of  the  gorilla-tribe,  if  advance  has 
occurred,  have  proceeded  to  the  extent  of  developing  a 
new  species,  man  ?  The  chances  are  almost  infinite  in 
number  against  the  appearance  even  in  one  pair  of  mon- 
keys through  numberless  generations,  of  organs,  facul- 
ties, senses,  perceptions,  and  moral  qualities,  useless  for 
the  time  being  in  the  struggle  for  life  and  yet  converging 
to  the  same  point,  the  evolution  of  a  human  being.  Add 
*o  this  the  fact  that  there  are  a  thousand  chances  to  one 
that  if  a  new  species  is  produced  it  will  speedily  revert 
to  ancestral  forms,  that  if  slight  increments  of  change 
acquire  permanency,  other  closely  allied  species  wMl 
be  produced,  and  we  are  enabled  to  catch  a  glimpse 
of  the    improbability   of  this    theory,    an    improbability 


MAN'S    PHYSICAL    NATURE.  59 

amounting  almost  to  demonstration  that  no  species  of 
ape   could  have  been   man's  progenitor. 

Even  supposing  that  all  these  fortuitous  variations 
were  improved  types,  still,  some  would  improve  more 
than  others;  hence  it  must  result  that  this  ascending  se- 
ries of  necessity  would  have  perpetuated  branches  ©f  the 
simial  family  in  advance  of  previous  forms,  thus  produc- 
ing a  graduated  series  between  man  and  his  ape-like 
ancestors.  No  such  gradation  of  beings  exists,  however, 
or  has  existed,  so  far  as  known.  And  if  one  species  of 
the  ape-family  had  actually  advanced  a  few  steps  to- 
wards manhood,  the  powerful  tendency  to  revert  to  the 
original  type  would,  in  all  probability,  have  obliterated 
the  slight  improvements  long  ere  the  immense  interven- 
ing distance  was  successfully  traversed.  The  variations, 
all  within  narrow  limits,  which  man  has  been  able  to 
produce  in  animals  by  the  careful  selection  of  individuals 
possessing  transmissible  qualities,  are  very  speedily  ob- 
literated when  care  is  relaxed,  the  old  types  reappearing. 

Admitting  that  natural  selection  does  tend  to  pro- 
duce variation,  and  that  it  accumulates  and  preserves 
these  slight  increments  of  development;  still,  can  it 
evolve  higher  species  from  lower  ?  This,  confessedly, 
has  not  been  proved.  It  has  been  proved  that  rudimen- 
tary organs  exist,  that  new  varieties  can  be  produced, 
but  it  has  not  been  shown  that  advance  is  indefinite,  nor 
that  when  it  occurs  it  is  not  a  regain  of  lost  characters. 
Ducks,  removed  for  several  generations  from  water,  are 
said  to  lose  the  web  from  between  their  toes:  placed 
again  for  several  successive  generations  near  water  they 
redevelop  them.  Does  this  prove  advance  ?  If  a  few 
pairs  of  monkeys,  more  ambitious  than  their  neighbors, 
should  acquire  greater  facility  in  the  use  of  their  fore- 
feet as  hands,  and  should  assume  a  more  erect  posture, 


GO  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

and  under  the  operation  of  natural  selection  should  be 
capable  of  preserving  and  transmitting  these  acquisitions, 
it  would  yet  remain  to  prove  that  these  changes  were 
not  a  reversion.  Even  then  the  problem  would  not  be 
solved,  for  it  would  still  be  necessary  to  show  that  the 
improvements  actually  continued  till  "  the  human  form 
divine  "  was  evolved  from  that  of  the  ape,  and  then 
acquired  such  fixedness  as  neither  to  advance  further  for 
thirty  thousand  years,  nor  to  revert  in  one  single  in- 
stance to  the  ancestral  form. 

If  man  is  descended  from  some  ape-like  progenitor, 
it  is  difficult  to  see  why  his  infant  children  should 
have  become  so  helpless  as  to  require  years  to  attain 
strength  and  knowledge  sufficient  to  take  care  of 
themselves.  The  human  infant  is  the  most  helpless 
[of  creatures.  Young  monkeys  are  sprightly,  active, 
and  self-helpful. 

It  ought  to  be  observed,  moreover,  that  the  gain  of  a 
few  individuals  is  not  a  net  gain  to  the  species;  and  in 
nature,  where  "  love  "  has  its  own  way,  what  is  to  pre- 
vent such  a  pairing  of  individuals  as  shall  effectually  ob- 
literate these  slight  improvements?  Manifestly  there 
is  an  almost  absolute  certainty  that  the  advances  made 
by  the  few  will,  in  a  state  of  nature,  speedily  disappear 
under  the  malign  influence  of  the  many.  If  there  is  any 
permanent  advance,  quite  manifestly  it  must  be  the 
gradual  improvement  of  the  entire  species,  at  least  of  all 
the  individuals  inhabiting  an  extended  region;  but  how 
is  this  possible  without  leaving  monuments  along  the 
lengthened  pathway  through  which  they  must  have 
journeyed  ? 

If  an  improved  variety  of  monkey  was  "evolved" 
from  some  pre-existing  lower  form,  what  prevented  the 
individuals  from   becoming   sterile   inter  sc,  the   variety 


MAN'S    PHYSICAL    NATURE.  61 

thus  disappearing  entirely  ?  It  is  an  established  fact 
that  both  in  plants  and  animals  improved  varieties,  that 
is,  those  which  have  acquired  profitable  characteristics 
bearing  but  slight  resemblance  to  those  of  the  species, 
tend  to  sterility.  Precisely  the  reverse  of  this  is  what 
we  should  have  expected  if  the  differences  between 
varieties  really  became  augmented  into  the  wider  dif- 
ferences between  species.  Moreover,  since  two  distinct 
species  are  almost  invariably  sterile  when  their  members 
are  united,  it  follows  that  the  individuals  of  different 
varieties  should  be  expected  to  grow  mutually  sterile, 
more  and  more  so  as  they  approached  a  new  species; 
but  the  fact  is  diametrically  opposite,  varieties  of  the 
same  species  are  mutually  fertile,  and  more  so  than  in- 
dividuals of  the  same,  and  especially  of  an  improved, 
variety.  Again:  closely  allied  species,  as  the  horse  and 
the  ass,  produce  offspring  which  are  either  sterile  or  be- 
come so  in  one  or  two  generations;  which  apparently 
ought  to  be  otherwise  if  varieties  and  species  are  funda- 
mentally the  same,  differing  only  in  degree — indeed, 
hybrids  ought  to  be  more  fertile,  for  the  offspring  of  in- 
dividuals of  two  different  varieties  commonly  are.  Xor 
is  it  possible  to  affirm  that  this  tendency  to  sterility, 
either  in  hybrids  or  in  the  offspring  of  a  variety  which 
has  been  interbreeding  too  long,  may  result  from  the 
operation  of  natural  selection,  for  it  is  inconsistent  with 
the  power  ascribed  to  this  agency,  if  not  inconceivable, 
that  natural  selection  should  have  accumulated  and  pre- 
served increasingly  advantageous  increments  of  sterility 
— profitable  additions  of  a  negation.  Therefore,  before 
the  mutation  of  species  can  be  considered  established 
four  hard  facts  should  be  satisfactorily  explained: — 

I.  Why  do  marked  varieties  tend  to  become  sterile  if 
new  vigor  is  not  imparted  by  crossing  with  individuals  of 


02  THEISM   AXD    EVOLUTION. 

another  variety  under  the  same  species  ?  Darwin  says, 
**  It  is  a  great  law  of  nature  that  good  should  come  from 
crossing."  Why  ?  Evolution  can  give  no  answer.  The 
advocates  of  the  immutability  of  species  can  reply,  M  The 
good  would  seem  to  come  from  the  contribution  to  the 
offspring  by  each  parent  of  some  quality  or  qualities 
which  the  other  lacks,  or  has  only  in  small  measure,  which 
qualities  are  essential  to  the  species  under  which  the  vari- 
eties occur."*  In  confirmation  of  this  he  is  able  to  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  good  is  in  exact  proportion 
to  the  amount  of  positive  structural  differences  in  the 
crossed  parents;  and  that  when  a  variety  has  all  the 
positive  features  of  its  species  no  advantage  results  from 
crossing  with  another  variety.  Evolution  ought  to  assign 
some  reason  why  crossing  is  so  advantageous.  It  ought 
also  to  explain  how  this  tendency  to  sterility  is  acquired. 
It  ought  to  show  how  an  improved  variety  of  the  monkey- 
tribe  could  pass  the  immense  distance  which  intervenes 
between  the  simial  family  and  the  human,  without  becom- 
ing extinct,  the  individuals  growing  sterile. 

2.  Why  are  distinct  species  invariably  sterile  inter  se  ? 
If  good  comes  from  the  crossing  of  varieties,  an  actual 
remedy  being  thereby  furnished  for  the  evils  resulting 
from  close  interbreeding,  and  if  species  are  simply  vari- 
eties further  removed,  it  is  remarkable  that  species  when 

*  Darwin  says,  "  I  have  collected  so  large  a  body  of  facts,  showing  on  the 
one  hand  that  an  occasional  cross  with  a  distinct  individual  or  variety  increases 
the  vigor  and  fertility  of  the  offspring,  and  on  the  other  hand  that  very  close 
interbreeding  lessens  their  vigor  and  fertility,  that  I  must  admit  the  correctness 
of  this  almost  universal  belief  among  breeders.'* — Origin  of  Species,  p.  2;;. 

"  Both  with  plants  and  animals,  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  a  cross 
between  individuals  of  the  same  species,  which  differ  to  a  certain  extent,  give; 
vigor  and  fertility  to  the  offspring:  and  that  close  interbreeding  continued 
during  several  generations  l>et\veen  the  nearest  relatives,  especially  if  these  be 
kept  under  the  same  condition  of  life,  almost  always  induces  weakness  and 
Sterility." — Origin  of Sfeciest  p.  252. 


MAN'S   PHYSICAL    NATURE.  63 

crossed  are  not  fertile.  "  The  view  generally  entertained 
by  naturalists,"  says  Darwin,  "  is  that  species,  when  inter- 
crossed, have  been  specially  endowed  with  sterility,  in 
order  to  prevent  their  confusion.  This  view  certainly 
seems  at  first  highly  probable,  for  species  within  the  same 
country  could  hardly  have  been  kept  distinct  had  they 
been  capable  of  freely  crossing." — Origin  of  Species,  p. 
233.  The  barriers  of  species  seem  fixed  with  a  measure 
of  rigidity  which  effectually  prevents  individuals  from  pro- 
pagating either  monstrosities  or  new  orders  of  beings.* 
Individuals  of  two  remote  species  of  the  monkey  family 
could  not  have  been  the  parents  of  man's  ancestors. 

3.  Why  are  hybrids,  or  the  offspring  of  allied  species, 
sterile,  or  nearly  so  ?  Darwin  says,  "  I  doubt  whether 
any  case  of  a  perfectly  fertile  hybrid  animal  can  be  con- 
sidered as  thoroughly  well  authenticated." — Origin  of 
Species,  p.  238.  Again:  "  Hybrids  from  two  species  [of 
plants]  which  are  very  difficult  to  cross,  and  which  rarely 
produce  any  offspring,  are  generally  very  sterile." — Idem, 
p.  241.  Once  more:  "  A  multitude  of  cases  could  be 
given  of  very  closely  allied  species  which  will  not  unite, 
or  only  with  extreme  difficulty." — Idem,  p.  241. 

How  then  could  individuals  of  two  closely  related 
monkey  species  become  the  progenitors  of  a  hybrid 
progeny  which  ultimately  evolved  the  human  species, 
which  retains  fertility  after  thousands  of  generations  ? 

*  "According  to  this  [Darwin's]  view  of  the  origin  of  many  domestic 
animals,  we  must  either  give  up  the  belief  of  the  almost  universal  sterility 
of  distinct  species  of  animals  when  crossed,  or  we  must  look  at  sterility, 
not  as  an  indelible  characteristic,  but  as  one  capable  of  being  removed  by 
domestication." 

His  conclusion  is  in  these  words:  "  Finally,  considering  all  the  ascertained 
facts  on  the  intercrossing  of  plants  and  animals,  it  may  be  concluded  that  some 
degree  of  sterility,  both  in  first  crosses  and  in  hybrids,  is  an  extremely  general 
result;  but  that  it  cannot,  under  our  present  state  of  knowledge,  be  considered 
as  absolutely  universal." — Origin  of  Species,  p.  239-240. 


64  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

Darwin,  it  is  true  makes  light  of  the  sterility  of  hybrids. 
This  he  might  have  done  with  propriety  if  sterility  had 
characterized  the  crossing  of  varieties,  instead  of  the 
interbreeding  of  individuals  of  an  improved  variety;  if 
increase  of  fertility  had  marked  the  interbreeding  of 
individuals  of  an  improved  variety,  instead  of  the  crossing 
of  different  varieties  belonging  to  the  same  species. 

To  blunt  the  force  of  the  argument  from  sterility, 
Darwin  has  invented  two  hypotheses;  {a)  Individuals  of 
the  same  species  are  susceptible  of  all  degrees  of  lessened 
fertility — therefore,  sterility  is  not  a  special  endowment 
to  prevent  the  transmutation  of  species;  (b)  Sterility 
between  different  species  may  have  been  induced  by 
modifications  slowly  impressed  by  unknown  causes  on  the 
reproductive  systems  of  parent-forms — nothing  stands  in 
the  way  of  crossing  species  successfully  except  the  want 
of  adaptation  in  genital  organs  and  in  the  reproductive 
elements.* 

4.  What  causes  could  have  produced  sterility  ?  If  a 
species  differs  from  a  variety  merely  in  being  a  more 
permanent  aggregate  of  characteristics  slowly  acquired 
through  nearly  interminable  periods,  and  if,  consequently, 

*  "  We  see  that  when  forms,  which  must  be  considered  as  good  and  di-tinct 
species,  are  united,  their  fertility  graduates  from  zero  to  perfect  fertility." 
—  Origin  of  Species,  p.  243. 

"The  foregoing  rules  and  facts  .  .  .  appear  to  me  clearly  to  indicate  that  the 
sterility  both  of  first  crosses  and  of  hybrids  is  simply  incidental  or  dependent  on 
unknown  differences  in  their  reproductive  systems.  .  .  .  And  as  we  must  look 
at  the  curious  and  complex  laws  governing  the  facility  with  which  trees  can  be 
grafted  on  each  other  as  incidental  on  unknown  differences  in  their  vegetative 
systems,  so  I  Ix-lieve  that  the  still  more  complex  laws  governing  the  facility  of 
first  crosses  are  incidental  on  unknown  differences  in  their  reproductive  systems. 
.  .  .  The  facts  by  no  means  seem  to  me  to  indicate  that  the  greater  or  less 
difficulty  of  either  grafting  or  crossing  various  species  has  been  a  special  endow- 
ment; although  in  the  case  of  crossing,  the  difficulty  is  as  important  for  the 
endurance  and  stability  of  specific  forms,  as  in  the  case  of  grafting  it  is  unim- 
portant for  their  welfare."— Origin  cf  Species,  p.  245-246. 


MAN'S    PHYSICAL    NATURE.  65 

sterility  is  not  a  special  endowment,  how  could  it  have 
originated — to  say  nothing  of  the  difficulty  of  explaining 
why  it  should  be  operative  where  according  to  the  theory 
it  should  have  been  inoperative,  and  inoperative  where  it 
should  have  been  operative  ? 

Darwin  concedes  that  natural  selection  could  not  have 
produced  sterility;  *  that  no  advantages  could  come  to 
separated  species  by  being  rendered  mutually  sterile,  but 
that  it  would  profit  an  incipient  species  if  it  were  ren- 
dered in  some  slight  degree  sterile  when  crossed  with 
its  parent-form,  or  with  some  other  variety;  for  thus 
fewer  bastardized  and  deteriorated  offspring  would  be 
produced  to  commingle  their  blood  with  the  new  species 
in  process  of  formation;  that  the  facts  connected  with 
reciprocal  crosses  are  directly  in  the  way  of  accepting 
natural  selection  as  an  agency  in  the  production  of 
sterility.  Forced  to  acknowledge  that  his  pet  theory 
furnishes  no  explanation  of  the  facts  connected  with 
sterility,  he  takes  refuge  in  his  oft-repeated  proposition 
that  sterility  is  incidental  on  unknown  differences  in  the 
reproductive  systems  of  the  parent-species. — Origin  of 
Species,  p.  248-249. 

It  was  once  thought  that  the  sterility  of  hybrids 
might  possibly  be  caused  by  the  commingling  of  two 
different  constitutions  into  one,  disturbances  occurring 
in  the  subsequent  development.  This  is  now  aban- 
doned, it  having  been  ascertained  that  sterility    affects 

*  "  The  sterility  of  species  when  first  crossed,  and  that  of  their  hybrid 
offspring,  cannot  have  been  acquired  by  the  continued  preservation  of 
successive,  profitable  degrees  of  sterility. " — Origin  of  Species,  p.  233. 

"After  mature  reflection  it  seems  to  me  that  this  could  not  have  been  ef- 
fected through  natural  selection." — Idem,  p.  247. 

"  I  infer,  as  far  as  animals  are  concerned,  that  the  various  degrees  of  les- 
sened fertility  which  occur  with  species  when  crossed  cannot  have  been  slowly 
accumulated  by  means  of  natural  selection." — Idem,  p.  247. 


66  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

the  offspring  of  dimorphic  and  trimorphic  forms,  as  in 
plants  which  present  two  and  three  forms  which  differ  in 
no  respect  except  in  their  reproductive  systems.  Why 
are  these,  whose  organisms  are  precisely  the  same,  infer- 
tile i?iter  se,  when  the  pollen  of  the  one  is  artificially 
communicated  to  the  stigmas  of  the  other,  the  diffi- 
culties connected  with  their  reproductive  systems  being 
thereby  obviated  ?  Lo,  they  are  as  sterile  as  two  distinct 
species. 

If  in  the  vegetable  world  there  had  been  no  sterility  be- 
tween separated  species,  it  seems  evident  that  there  must 
have  been  confusion  inexplicable.  If  the  stigmas  of  each 
flower  and  each  blossom  could  have  been  fertilized  by  the 
pollen  of  any  plant,  it  would  have  been  impossible  to 
determine  what  kind  of  fruit  any  particular  tree  would 
bear.  A  garden  in  which  there  were  fruit  trees — peach, 
apple,  cherry,  and  plum;  small-fruit — strawberries,  rasp- 
berries, blackberries,  etc.;  vegetables — peas,  beans,  pota- 
toes; flowers — roses,  fusias,  pinks,  etc.,  what  would  be 
its  products  in  the  autumn  ?  Who  could  tell  what  pollen 
would  fertilize  each  blossom  ? 

Another  powerful  reason  for  rejecting  this  theory  is 
the  absence  of  transitional  forms.  As  we  are  not  asked 
to  believe  that  the  ape-like  creature,  to  which  man  is 
said  to  owe  his  origin,  was  the  immediate  offspring  of 
the  simiadae,  but  that  there  were  numberless  insensible 
gradations,  it  is  certainly  strange  that  no  connecting 
links  have  been  discovered,  either  among  the  living  or 
the  fossil  dead.  According  to  evolutionists,  apes  ranged 
over  the  continent  of  Europe  as  far  back  as  the  upper 
miocene  period;  and  yet,  what  they  are  now  they  were 
then,  there  being  no  remains  of  improved  forms.  Still, 
we  are  expected  to  believe  that  the  gorilla  went  on  im- 
proving   for    thousands  upon  thousands  of  years  till  at 


MAN'S    PHYSICAL    NATURE.  67 

length  man  was  born,  and  then  forsooth  the  improved 
species  died  out,  and  all  the  intermediate  forms  disap- 
peared, leaving  only  the  silly  monkey  and  his  disowned 
children,  the  human  family,  all  record  of  the  intimate 
relationship  between  them  having  been  effectually  oblit- 
erated. Assuredly,  we  may  count  on  being  excused  for 
expressing  the  regret  that  at  least  one  fossil  hand,  or 
skull,  or  thigh-bone,  or  pelvis,  belonging  to  a  transi- 
tional form,  was  not  preserved;  but  no,  we  have  simply 
gorilla's  bones  and  man's  bones,  no  bones  from  interme- 
diate links. 

Great  as  is  the  improbability  that  there  should  be  no 
record  of  the  transition  from  the  ape  to  man,  the  improb- 
ability is  greater  that  all  species  should  have  varied  dur- 
ing the  long  geological  periods  without  leaving  one  single 
fossil  of  a  transitional  form,  not  even  in  situations  and 
under  conditions  where  almost  everything  seems  to  have 
been  preserved.  Why  is  there  such  a  number  of  perfectly 
similar  specimens  of  so  many  species  of  plants  and  ani- 
mals, and  no  graduated  links;  and  yet,  in  order  to  the 
gradual  development  of  species,  the  number  of  variations 
must  have  been  far  greater  than  the  number  of  individ- 
uals in  any  one  variety  ?  It  seems  therefore  more  prob- 
able that  no  two  specimens  preserved  would  be  of  the 
same  variety,  than  that  numberless  specimens  of  one  va- 
riety should  be  found  and  absolutely  none  of  the  connect- 
ing varieties.  It  is  almost  inconceivable  that  no  record 
should  be  preserved  of  all  the  incipient  stages  in  the 
development  of  new  organs;  and  yet,  though  thirty  thou- 
sand specimens  of  extinct  animals  have  been  collected, 
not  one  has  been  proved  to  be  a  transitional  form,  but  is 
considered  as  belonging  to  an  independent  species,  the 
few  once  claimed  as  intermediate  forms  having  been 
proved  to  be  distinct. 


G8  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

This  objection,  it  has  been  said,  though  of  force  against 
evolution  in  general,  has  no  force  against  the  Darwinian 
hypothesis,  since  the  absence  of  transitions  is  a  conse- 
quence of  his  doctrine,  the  stock  whence  new  species 
spring  not  being  necessarily  intermediate  between  two 
pre-existing  species,  as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the 
carrier-pigeon  and  the  fan-tail  came  from  the  rock-pigeon 
without  any  intermediate  links.  If  there  is  any  cogency 
in  this  argument,  it  is  singular  that  Darwin  did  not  observe 
:t;  and  if  his  pupils  are  to  employ  it,  it  is  unfortunate  that 
their  teacher  so  frequently  laid  stress  upon  the  aphorism, 
"  Natura  non  fecit  saltum."  If  nature  makes  no  jumps 
there  certainly  ought  to  be  transitional  forms. 

Sir  Charles  Lyell  (who  after  long  resistance  has  be- 
come an  advocate  of  evolution  and  as  well  of  the  savage 
theory  of  man's  origin)  undertakes,  in  his  Antiquity  of 
Man,  to  blunt  the  edge  of  this  adverse  criticism  by 
reminding  his  readers  that  search  for  the  missing  links 
between  man  and  apes  has  not  yet  been  made  upon  the 
proper  pages  of  nature's  great  book.  They  must  be 
sought,  he  says,  not  in  miocene  or  eocene  strata,  but  in 
pliocene  and  pleistocene  and  in  equatorial  regions.  In 
these  latter  formations,  and  in  the  continents  of  Africa 
and  Asia,  investigation  must  be  made.  But  he  elsewhere 
affirms  that  in  very  remote  periods  Europe  enjoyed  a 
tropical  climate  and  was  inhabited  by  gibbons  and  long- 
armed  apes  and  monkeys  in  large  numbers.  Why  con- 
clude that  the  transmutation  must  have  taken  place  in 
regions  as  yet  but  imperfectly  explored  ? 

The  links  in  the  evolutionist's  argument  are  thus 
found  to  be  the  weakest  just  where  they  should  have  been 
the  strongest.  Darwin  admits  that  he  should  have 
expected  more  evidence  from  geology.  The  only  explan- 
ation he  can  give  is  to  insist  upon  the  imperfection  of  the 


MAN'S   PHYSICAL    NATURE.  69 

geological  record — a  poor  solution,  as  all  must  acknowl- 
edge. He  even  concedes  that  all  the  most  eminent 
geologists,  reasoning  from  this  absence  of  intermediate 
forms,  believe  in  the  immutability  of  species.  He  be- 
lieves, however,  in  the  mutability  of  species;  and  yet, 
if  varieties  differ  from  species  only  in  degree,  the  suc- 
cessive steps  ought  to  have  been  chronicled  in  the  rocks 
by  a  connected  series  of  slightly  improved  individuals;  if 
indeed,  instead  of  a  record  of  the  existence  of  distinct 
species,  there  ought  not  to  have  been  clear  traces  of 
utter  confusion  in  nature.  It  is  true  that  fossils  from 
successive  formations  are  more  closely  related  to  each 
other  than  the  fossils  of  two  remote  formations;  it  is  also 
true  that  the  tendency  in  recent  geological  researches  is 
to  adopt  the  theory  that  there  has  been  no  sudden  and 
extensive  changes;  but  there  are  gaps,  nevertheless,  as 
few  presume  to  deny. 

Though  it  is  now  generally  conceded  that  the  trans- 
formations which  have  taken  place  were  seldom,  perhaps 
never,  sudden,  complete,  and  simultaneous;  still,  evidence 
is  not  wanting  that  they  were  in  fact  new  creations.  For 
example,  the  silurian  rocks  contain  fossils  in  abundance, 
but  there  are  no  fishes  and  no  forms  giving  evidence  of 
the  capability,  or  even  possibility,  of  developing  fish.  In 
the  next  epoch,  lo,  fishes  are  found  in  vast  numbers,  and 
even  in  perfect  types.  If  there  was  an  almost  infinite 
number  of  gradations  between  mollusks  and  fish,  why 
are  there  no  deposits  containing  testimony  to  this  fact  ? 
Why  is  the  proof  so  strong  that  there  have  been  suc- 
cessive creations  ? 

Why  do  the  changes,  which  in  many  instances  are  not 
slight,  bear  evidence  of  having  been  produced  by  a  power 
outside  or  above  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  ?  "  The 
evidence  of  geology  to-day,"  says  an  eminent  naturalist, 


70  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

u  is  that  species  seem  to  come  in  suddenly  and  in  full  per- 
fection, remain  substantially  unchanged  during  the  term 
of  their  existence,  and  pass  away  in  full  perfection,  other 
species  take  their  place,  apparently  by  substitution,  not 
by  transmutation." 


CHAPTER   IV. 

MAN'S   INTELLECTUAL  NATURE. 

It  is  more  particularly  as  it  relates  to  the  origin  of  man's 
moral,  intellectual,  and  religous  nature,  tha.t  the  christian 
has  to  do  with  the  theory  of  evolution.  The  idea  of  a 
relationship  between  man  and  the  lower  animals  is  con- 
ceivable, as  far  as  the  mere  animal  frame  is  concerned. 
Confessedly,  there  are  many  close  resemblances  in  ana- 
tomical structure;  indeed,  there  is  nearly  absolute  identity, 
bone  for  bone,  muscle  for  muscle — some  muscles  occur- 
ring in  man  which  are  of  no  use,  though  of  use  in  apes. 
Similar  organs  perform  like  functions.  The  apes,  as  well 
as  man,  love  and  hate,  perceive  and  feel,  remember  and 
imagine,  will  and  reason,  have  definite  ideas  and  the 
means  of  communicating  them.  Professor  Agassiz  attri- 
butes to  animals  "  an  immaterial  principle  similar  to  that 
which,  by  its  excellence  and  superior  endowments,  places 
man  above  animals."  When  we  are  asked  to  believe, 
however,  that  our  mental  faculties,  which  are  capable  of 
such  improvement,  have  been  evolved  from  those  of  the 
simiadae,  too  heavy  a  tax  is  laid  upon  our  credulity.  Most 
persons,  even  those  who  do  not  believe  in  the  christian 
religion,  are  disposed  to  accept  the  account  given  in  the 
Bible,  one  of  the  crowning  glories  of  which  is  that  it  rec- 
ognizes, in  all  its  fullness,  the  essential  dignity  of  the 
human  family.  It  presents  God  as  the  Author  of  our 
being,  and  the  Preserver  of  our  existence,  our  Strength 


72  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

in  the  struggle  with  sin,  our  Comfort  in  sorrow,  and  our 
Hope  in  death. 

We  should  err  were  we  to  confine  this  ennobling  con- 
ception of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  to  those  who  possess 
His  revealed  Will.  It  has  found  a  place  in  many  systems 
of  faith.  Elsewhere  than  under  the  influence  of  Hebrew 
forms  of  philosophy,  even  in  nations  less  cultured  than 
the  Greeks  and  less  intellectual  than  the  Romans,  has 
the  peasant  boasted  of  a  divine  parentage.  To  others, 
as  well  as  to  the  Athenians,  Paul  might  have  said,  "  As 
certain  also  of  your  own  poets  have  said,  '  For  we  are  his 
offspring.' " 

A  theory  of  man's  origin  therefore  which  is  honorable 
and  ennobling,  and  which  comes  to  us  sacred  with  years 
and  consecrated  by  the  faith  of  generations,  may  be  ex- 
pected to  be  so  entrenched  within  our  affections  that 
powerful  arguments  will  be  needed  to  shake  the  convic- 
tion that  we  are  made  in  God's  image — our  intellectual 
faculties  being  a  copy,  faint  though  real,  of  God's  un- 
clouded intelligence — our  moral  nature  a  transcript,  dim 
indeed  but  genuine,  of  God's  approbation  of  right  and  His 
condemnation  of  wrong.  It  would  seem  as  though  the 
unbiased  investigator  must  accept  the  affirmation  of  M. 
Quatrefagas,  as  given  in  his  work  on  the  Unity  of  the 
Hitman  Species:  "Man  must  form  a  kingdom  by  himself 
if  once  we  permit  his  moral  and  intellectual  endowments 
to  have  their  due  weight  in  classification." 

Does  the  theory  in  question  possess  arguments  suffi- 
ciently potent  to  counteract  these  predilections  ?  Does 
it  satisfactorily  account  for  man's  higher  nature  ?  It  is 
conceded  that  here  the  theory  is  weak.  Professor  Huxley 
himself  admits  that  the  difference  between  man  and  the 
lower  animals  amounts  to  an  "enormous  gulf,"  to  "a 
divergence   immeasurable — practically   infinite."      Those 


MAN'S    INTELLECTUAL    NATURE.  73 

therefore  who  are  inclined  to  believe  that  the  theory  of 
evolution  may  be  so  stated  as  to  contain  nothing  neces- 
sarily antagonistic  to  Revelation  will  be  disposed  to  limit 
it  to  man's  physical  nature,  maintaining  that  in  other 
respects  at  least  he  was  not  only  made  in  God's  image, 
but  was  created  without  the  intervention  of  natural  causes: 
and  since-  the  possibility  of  the  mutation  of  species  is  as 
yet  unestablished,and  man's  descent  even  in  his  bodily 
organism  from  the  monkey  rests  on  inconclusive  testi- 
mony, most  persons  will  also  deem  it  unnecessary  to  as- 
sume two  origins,  one  for  the  lower,  the  other  for  the 
higher  nature. 

Unless  God  is  our  Creator  how  shall  we  account  for 
that  subtle  force  we  denominate  mind  ?  To  say  nothing 
of  the  difficulty  of  accounting  for  the  origin  of  the  mind 
of  brutes — of'perceiving  how  intellectuality  can  be  evolved 
from  matter — how  shall  we  be  put  in  possession  of  evidence 
sufficient  to  induce  the  belief  that  "  the  human  mind  has 
gradually  developed  in  the  course  of  millions  of  years 
from  the  mind  of  the  lower-skulled  animals  "  ?  How  is  it 
possible  to  believe  that  from  sources  so  inadequate  those 
faculties  could  have  been  evolved  which  have  compelled 
nature  to  unlock  her  storehouses,  affording  clothing  of 
every  variety  and  food  in  abundance;  faculties,  which 
have  devised  means  of  protection  against  beasts  whose 
fleetness,  strength,  and  agility  surpass  those  of  man,  thus 
giving  the  weak  an  easy  dominion  over  the  strong;  which 
have  made  nature  man's  servant,  controlling  her  actions 
or  bringing  his  into  harmony  with  hers  ?  Improvable 
reason  is  man's  peculiar  and  exclusive  endowment. 

The  dominion  of  mind  over  matter,  however,  marvelous 
as  it  is,  is  not  the  strongest  proof  of  man's  supernatural 
origin.  The  wonderful  creations  of  the  human  intellect, 
in  musical  harmony,  in  poetry,  in  painting,  in  sculpture, 


74  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

in  architecture;  its  marvelous  powers,  of  induction,  analy- 
sis, synthesis,  generalization;  its  ability  to  form  abstract 
ideas — space,  goodness,  sin,  immensity,  truth,  honor, 
eternity,  the  absolute  and  the  unconditioned, — infinite 
conceptions  struggling  for  expression  in  human  language, 
— these  testify  to  the  existence  of  faculties  which  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  conceive  could  have  been  developed 
from  lower  animals.  In  like  manner,  the  capability  of 
receiving  pleasure  from  mathematical  demonstrations — 
in  fact  the  ability  to  prosecute  them — and  the  perception 
of  cogency  and  beauty  in  an  argument  felicitously  ex- 
pressed, certainly  afford  evidence  of  an  immense  chasm 
between  man  and  the  most  gifted  of  the  inferior  animals. 
This  "  immeasurable  divergence"  becomes  even  more 
apparent  as  we  contemplate  the  achievements  of  the 
astronomer,  who,  in  his  study  of  the  systems  of  worlds 
which  move  through  the  unheralded  pathways  of  a  uni- 
verse, has  ascertained  facts  and  established  laws  which 
reason  seems  to  say  must  forever  have  remained  beyond 
the  grasp  of  a  being  whose  mind  was  evolved  from  "  the 
medullary  tube  of  the  lancelet."  To  measure  the  dis- 
tances, to  estimate  the  size,  and  to  determine  the  move- 
ments of  bodies  so  far  distant  as  to  appear  mere  specks 
in  the  depths  of  immensity  is  quite  manifestly  a  task  too 
great  for  any  brain  that  could  have  been  developed  from 
that  of  the  lowest  vertebrate.  As  in  imagination  we  place 
ourselves  at  the  center  of  the  solar  system,  seeing  the 
planets  as  they  move  in  their  noiseless  pathways;  as  in 
fancy  we  station  ourselves  at  Alcyone,  the  apparent  cen- 
ter of  our  nebulous  system,  ascertaining  the  length  of 
time  required  for  its  revolution  and  learning  that  it  burns 
with  a  brilliancy  twelve  thousand  times  greater  than  that 
of  our  sun,  it  will  require  a  logic  trenchant  indeed  to  con- 
vince us  that  man  owes  his  origin  to  anything  less  than 


MAN'S    INTELLECTUAL    NATURE.  75 

the  direct  volition  of  an  Infinite  Intelligence.  Wondering 
at  the  conquests  of  the  human  intellect  we  instinctively 
exclaim,  "  It  is  the  handiwork  of  God." 

The  mind  of  man  is  capable  of  yet  greater  triumphs. 
With  the  assistance  of  the  largest  telescope — itself  a  mar- 
vel of  mechanical  and  scientific  genius — the  beholder  can 
number,  it  is  said,  eighty  million  suns;  some  of  which  are 
so  far  distant  that  the  light  which  they  reflect  requires 
more  than  a  million  years  to  reach  the  eye;  nay,  burning 
specks  have  been  resolved  into  suns,  each  shining  with 
splendor  equaling  that  of  our  sun.  Furnished  with  a 
knowledge  of  the  higher  mathematics,  it  is  even  possible 
to  measure  their  distances  from  each  other,  their  distance 
from  the  earth,  and  their  periods  of  revolution.  As  we 
concentrate  our  thoughts  upon  these  and  similar  displays 
of  mental  power  the  overawed  soul  asks  with  the  em- 
phasis of  a  well-founded  faith,  Can  man  be  less  than  the 
direct  creation  of  an  Omniscient  Intellect  ?  Most  per- 
sons would  no  doubt  concur  In  the  opinion  that  it  requires 
no  small  measure  of  credulity  to  believe  that  the  "  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest "  of  monkeys  could  have  evolved  an 
intellect  capable  of  such  mental  processes,  even  though 
the  survival  should  have  been  uninterruptedly  carried  on 
during  four  hundred  millions  of  years;  that  the  intellect 
of  him  who  has  weighed  the  stars  and  compelled  the 
lightning  to  transmit  his  thoughts  has  been  developed 
from  that  of  the  silly  brute  which  wanders  in  the  forests 
of  tropical  countries  and  obtains  a  precarious  subsistence 
by  feeding  upon  the  uncultivated  products  of  the  soil; 
that  because  man's  framework  approaches  that  of  the  ape- 
family,  therefore  his  intellectual  faculties  are  the  same  in 
kind,  differing  only  in  degree.  Assuredly  it  is  easier  to 
believe  the  declarations,  "God  made  man  in  his  own 
image:"    "The    Lord   formed    man    of  the    dust    of  the 


7G  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

ground  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life; 
and  man  became  a  living  soul." 

Having  called  attention  to  the  greatness  of  the  human 
intellect  as  evinced  in  the  achievements  of  astronomy,  it 
may  not  be  inappropriate  to  note  evidences  of  its  exist- 
ence where,  according  to  evolutionists,  we  ought  least  to 
expect  it,  in  the  language  of  the  Hottentots.  We  are 
informed  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  E.  Norris,  that  though 
remarkably  simple,  their  language  is  yet  comprehensive 
and  expressive.  The  nouns  have  two  genders,  distin- 
guished by  termination.  There  are  four  numbers,  singu- 
lar, plural,  and  two  duals,  one  appropriated  to  a  pair,  the 
other  to  two  individuals.  Not  merely  is  the  nominative 
case  clearly  distinguished  from  the  accusative,  but  there 
is  a  copious  declension.  Its  numerous  pronouns,  all  com- 
pletely and  regularly  declined,  have  "distinct  forms  for 
every  conceivable  modification  of  meaning,"  the  second 
person  distinguishing  the  gender  and  the  first  person 
plural  having  two  forms,  one  including,  the  other  ex- 
cluding, the  person  addressed  in  the  "  we."  The  verbs 
are  conjugated  by  the  addition  of  syllables.  Even  con- 
junctions, which  are  supposed  to  characterize  highly 
cultured  languages,  are  quite  numerous.  Assuredly, 
on  the  theory  of  evolution,  is  seems  remarkably  strange 
that  even  the  lowest  savages  should  evince  so  great 
intelligence. 

Facts  such  as  these  come  in  strong  conflict  with  the  as- 
sertion of  Haeckel,  "  All  philologists  who  have  made  any 
'progress  in  their  science  now  unanimously  agree  that  all 
human  languages  have  developed  slowly  and  by  degrees 
from  the  simplest  rudiments.  The  natural  evolution  of 
language  is  necessarily  evident  to  the  student  of  nature. 
For  speech  is  a  physiological  function  of  the  human  or- 
ganism, developing  simultaneously  from  its  special  organs. 


MAN'S    INTELLECTUAL    NATURE.  77 

the  larynx  and  the  tongue,  and  simultaneously  with  the 
functions  of  the  brain." 

When  once  the  conviction  has  forced  itself  upon  us 
that  man's  intellectual  faculties  must  be  the  immediate 
creation  of  a  Supreme  Being,  we  are  disposed  to  concede 
that  his  physical  organism  most  probably  had  the  same 
origin,  since  there  is  a  correlation  between  the  two.  Man 
is  not  a  duality,  but  a  unity,  all  his  organs  being  adapted 
to  the  purposes  for  which  the  mind  employs  them.  If 
there  are  reasoning  faculties,  so  also  there  is  a  corres- 
ponding cranial  development.  If  there  exists  the  ability 
to  invent  new  machinery,  there  is  also  a  skillful  hand  to 
execute  the  mechanical  part  of  the  work.  If  there  is  the 
capability  of  receiving  correct  impressions  of  external  ob- 
jects, and  reasoning  in  reference  to  their  relations,  there 
are  also  organs  and  senses  adapted  to  convey  accurate 
representations  of  these  objects.  Suppose  that  by  some 
inexplicable  fortuity  the  mind  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton  had 
been  given  to  a  gorilla,  could  that  fortunate,  or  rather 
unfortunate,  specimen  of  the  simial  family  have  been  the 
renowned  philosopher  ?  The  very  supposition  is  its  own 
refutation,  and  for  this  simple  reason,  that  the  gorilla 
would  have  been  destitute  of  the  organs  correlated  to  a 
mind  so  different  from  that  of  his  ancestors.  Its  clumsy 
hand  and  unwieldy  arm  are  indeed  correlated  to  a  brain 
whose  servants  they  are,  and  are  adapted  to  the  uses 
for  which  they  are  needed;  but  no  amount  of  brain-power 
could  wield  them  in  penning  the  Principia.  Its  brain 
of  twenty-nine  and  one-fourth  cubic  inches  (the  average 
gorilla  brain),  or  thirty-five  cubic  inches  (the  largest  go- 
rilla's brain  yet  measured),  bears  an  inseparable  relation 
to  the  mind  that  employs  it,  but  would  very  poorly  an- 
swer the  purposes  of  a  mind  that  employed  a  brain  of 
one  hundred  and  fourteen  cubic  inches.     In  like  manner, 


78  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

the  nervous  system  of  the  ape  no  doubt  answers  the  ends 
for  which  it  was  given,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  it  would 
be  equal  to  the  demands  of  a  philosopher.  So  also  the 
tongue,  the  lips,  and  the  larynx  of  the  simiadse  are  cor- 
related with  the  functions  they  are  to  discharge,  but  are 
unfitted  to  pronounce  articulate  sounds  expressive  of 
definite  ideas.  As  Professor  Max  Miiller  has  aptly  re- 
marked, "  There  is  between  the  whole  animal  kingdom 
on  the  one  side,  and  man,  even  in  the  lowest  state,  on  the 
other,  a  barrier  which  no  animal  has  ever  crossed,  and 
that  barrier  is  language."  Again:  "  Show  me  an  animal 
that  can  think  and  say  '  Two,'  and  I  should  say  that 
as  far  as  language  is  concerned,  we  cannot  oppose  Mr. 
Darwin's  argument." 

Nor  is  it  pertinent  to  answer,  This  argument  merely 
proves  that  mind  must  be  the  result  of  progressive  devel- 
opment as  well  as  the  physical  organism  is,  the  two  main- 
taining intimate  and  mutually  helpful  relations:  for,  aside 
from  the  fact  that  anatomists  have  resolutely  maintained 
that  in  an  anatomical  point  of  view  the  transmutation  of 
the  ape  into  man  is  an  impossibility,  and  aside  from  the 
difficulty  of  evolving  man's  mental  and  moral  faculties 
from  the  simial  family,  an  additional  and  very  serious 
element  of  difficulty  is  introduced,  namely,  that  the  men- 
tal and  physical  improvement  of  the  gorilla  should  go  for- 
wards simultaneously,  maintaining  an  accurate  correla- 
tion during  all  the  stages.  Shall  the  budding  of  a  new 
faculty,  if  indeed  that  is  possible,  first  suggest  the  pro- 
priety of  developing  a  new  organ,  or  shall  the  incipient 
stages  of  a  new  organ  invite  the  mind  to  prepare  for 
expansion  ?— expansion  in  what  direction  ?  Or  must 
the  dawning  of  the  two  be  strictly  synchronous? 
In  this  case,  whence  comes  the  suggestive  impulse? 
Surely  we  seem  driven  to  admit  the  assertion  of  those 


MAN'S    INTELLECTUAL    NATURE.  79 

evolutionists  who  affirm  that  progress  is  "  by  insensible 
gradations  produced  by  a  fortuitous  concurrence  of 
circumstances" — a  wordy  explanation  which  explains 
nothing. 

Intelligence  and  instinct,  it  has  been  said,  stand  in 
inverse  ratio  to  each  other.  Some,  accordingly,  have 
maintained  that  the  higher  animals  have  gradually 
evolved  intellectual  faculties  from  their  instincts.  But 
no  such  inverse  ratio  exists.  Those  animals  have  the 
most  instinct  which  are  the  most  intelligent,  as  the 
beaver,  the  dog,  etc.  This  would  seem  to  stand  in  the 
way  of  the  assumption  that  instinct  may  be  transformed 
into  intellect,  unless  transformation  can  proceed  without 
lessening  that  which  is  transformed  until  the  transfor- 
mation becomes  nearly  or  quite  complete,  when  sud- 
denly intellect  almost  entirely  displaces  instinct.  If,  as 
is  conceded,  instinct  becomes  more  powerful  in  animals 
in  exact  proportion  as  they  become  more  intelligent, 
how,  if  man's  intellect  came  from  the  lower  animals,  does 
instinct  happen  to  be  feeble  in  man  though  intellect  is 
powerful  ?  It  is  difficult,  as  all  know,  to  draw  a  line 
of  demarkation  between  instinct  and  reason;  but  there 
certainly  is  no  evidence  that  the  former  develops  into 
the  latter. 

Herbert  Spencer  thinks  the  dawnings  of  intelligence 
were  developed  "  through  the  multiplication  and  co-ordi- 
nation of  reflex  actions."  This  mysterious  agency  has  been 
acting,  however,  upon  baboons  for  unnumbered  centuries 
under  the  eye  of  man.  Have  they  made  any  perceptible 
progress  in  ability  to  reason  ?  Have  they  attained  that 
degree  of  intellectual  development  which  enables  them 
to  understand  what  Spencer  means  by  this  all-potent  law 
through  whose  operation  their  more  honored  relatives 
became,  in   ancient   times — about   four  hundred   million 


80  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

years    ago — the    anthropomorphous    ancestors    of  home 
sapiens  t     Darwin  says: 

"These  [the  intellectual]  faculties  are  variable;  and  we  have  every 
reason  to  believe  that  the  variations  tend  to  be  inherited.  Therefore,  if 
they  were  formerly  of  high  importance  to  primeval  man  and  to  his  ape-like 
progenitors,  they  would  have  been  perfected  or  advanced  through  natural 
selection.  ...  It  is,  therefore,  highly  probable  that  with  mankind  the  intel- 
lectual faculties  have  been  gradually  perfected  through  natural  selection.  ...  It 
deserves  notice  that  as  soon  as  the  progenitors  of  man  became  social  (and  this 
probably  occurred  at  a  very  early  period),  the  advancement  of  the  intellectual 
faculties  will  have  been  aided  and  modified  in  an  important  manner,  of  which 
we  see  only  traces  in  the  lower  animals,  namely,  through  the  principle  of 
imitation,  together  with  reason  and  experience.  Apes  are  much  given  to 
imitation,  as  are  the  lowest  savages." 

In  his  lengthy  and  interesting  discussion  of  the  subject, 
this  last  mentioned  author  undertakes  to  point  out  re- 
semblances in  structure  between  man  and  apes,  similar 
processes  of  development,  like  functions  of  organic  mem- 
bers, and  even  the  possession  by  lower  animals  of  the 
rudiments  of  almost  every  human  faculty — sympathy, 
conscience,  reason,  will,. memory,  imagination,  the  sense 
of  beauty  as  exhibited  in  the  Bower  bird,  etc.  The 
argument,  shorn  of  its  irrelevent  though  interesting  facts, 
rests  on  the  following  syllogism: — I.  Man's  physical 
organism  was  probably  developed  from  the  lower  animals, 
since  they  have  correspondences;  2.  His  mental  powers 
may  possibly  have  been  evolved  from  the  germs  which 
seem  to  exist  in  inferior  animals,  as  in  the  ape- family; 
3.  The  two,  as  is  necessary,  may  have  been  concurrently 
developed;  Therefore: 

"Man  is  descended  from  a  hairy  quadruped,  furnished  with  a  tail  and 
pointed  ears,  probably  arborial  in  its  habits,  and  an  inhabitant  of  the  Old 
World.  This  creature,  if  its  whole  structure  had  been  examinc.l  by  a  naturalist, 
would  have  been  classed  among  the  quadrumana,  as  surely  a;  would  the  com- 
mon and  still  more  ancient  progenitor  of  the  Old  and  New  World  monkeys. 
The  quadrumana  and  all  the  higher  mammals  are  probably  derived  from  an  an- 
cient marsupial  animal,  and  this  through  a  long  line  of  diversified  forms,  either 
from  some  reptile-like  or  some  amphibian  like  creature,  and  this  again  from 


MAN'S    INTELLECTUAL    NATURE.  81 

some  fish-like  animal.  In  the  dim  obscurity  of  the  past  we  can  see  tha^  the 
early  progenitor  of  all  the  vertebrata  must  have  been  an  aquatic  animal,  pro- 
vided with  brachial,  with  the  two  sexes  united  in  the  same  individual,  and  with 
the  most  important  organs  of  the  body  (such  as  the  brain  and  heart)  imperfectly 
developed."  *  "At  the  period  and  place,  whenever  and  wherever  it  may  have 
been,  when  man  first  lost  his  hairy  covering,  he  probably  inhabited  a  hot  country 
and  this  would  have  been  favorable  for  a  frugiferous  diet,  on  which,  judging 
from  analogy,  he  subsisted.  We  are  far  from  knowing  how  long  ago  it  was 
when  man  first  diverged  from  the  catarhine  stock;  but  this  may  have  occurred 
at  an  epoch  as  remote  as  the  eocene  period ;  for  the  higher  apes  had  diverged 
from  the  lower  apes  as  early  as  the  upper  miocene  period. "  f  "  It  is  some- 
what more  probable  that  our  early  progenitors  lived  on  the  African  continent 
than  elsewhere."  J  "  The  simiadae  branched  off  into  two  great  stems,  the  New 
World  and  the  Old  World  monkeys;  and  from  the  latter,  at  a  remote  period, 
man,  the  wonder  and  glory  of  the  universe,  proceeded."  §. 

The  above  "  summary  "  would  probably  be  considered 
by  most  reasoners  as  a  large  yield  of"  conclusion  "  from  a 
small  outlay  of  premises  (albeit,  the  discussion  is  suffi- 
ciently extended). 

For  fear  we  may  be  charged  with  doing  injustice  to 
this  eminent  author,  we  append  a  few  of  the  interesting 
resemblances  pointed  out  by  him  as  existing  between 
man  and  apes — similarity  in  the  relative  positions  of  the 
features,  similar  movements  of  the  muscles  and  skin  in 
the  display  of  emotions,  resemblance  in  the  external  ears 
and  nose,  the  possession  of  beards,  the  abundance  of  hair 
on  the  head,  nakedness  of  the  forehead,  the  presence  of 
eye-brows,  the  arrangement  of  the  hair  on  the  arms  in 
converging  lines  towards  the  elbow,  the  same  senses 
and  intuitions,  the  same  emotions  and  faculties  which 
though  varying  in  degree  are  the  same  in  kind,  capability 
of  improvement,  etc.  Though  it  would  be  unfair  to  leave 
the  impression  that  Darwin  considers  these  and  similar 
resemblances  necessarily  the  result  of  unbroken  inheri- 
tance,  and   equally  unfair   to   assume  that  he  rests  his 

*  Descent  of  Man,  vol.  ii.  p.  372.  f  Idem,  vol.  i.  p.  192. 

%  Idem,  vol.  i.  p.  191.  §  Idem,  vol.  i.  p.  204. 


82  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

argument  mainly  on  these,  it  nevertheless  cannot  be 
denied  that  he  lays  great  stress  on  slight  analogies — 
much  greater,  apparently,  than  is  warrantable.  Such 
resemblances  neither  justify  us  in  charging  the  Deity 
with  want  of  originality,  nor  in  inferring  that  those  organ- 
isms in  which  they  occur  must  stand  related  to  each 
other  as  progenitor  and  offspring,  or  must  have  descended 
from  a  common  ancestry.  It  is  extremely  difficult  to 
conceive  that  there  should  have  been  an  entire  absence 
of  resemblances  between  man  and  the  lower  animals,  if  he 
was  to  possess  a  physical  nature:  apparently  there  was 
no  necessity  for  entire  dissimilarity;  nay,  the  very  similar- 
ity of  organs  in  two  beings,  which  are  nevertheless  separ- 
ated from  each  other  by  an  "  almost  infinite  divergence," 
tends  rather  to  heighten  the  conviction  that  at  least  the 
faculties  of  the  higher,  if  not  those  of  the  lower,  must  be 
the  direct  creation  of  Divine  Intelligence. 

In  contrast  with  this  theory — which  is  in  fact  but  an 
hypothesis  searching  for  facts  upon  which  to  rest — how 
honorable  is  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
human  family.  Man's  existence  is  due  to  divine  power, 
his  continuance  in  being  to  Him  who  upholds  systems, 
worlds,  suns,  myriads  of  forces;  to  Him  who  cares  for  the 
minutest  insect  that  flutters  away  its  brief  life  in  the 
morning  sunbeam;  who,  to  tiny  creatures,  has  given  not 
only  limbs,  mouths,  digestive  organs — all  the  parts 
requisite  to  success  in  the  struggle  for  food — but  has 
given  an  eye  so  perfect,  though  no  larger  than  the  point 
of  a  needle,  as  to  be  capable  of  producing  forty  thousand 
images  of  the  face  of  the  beholder.  "  Marvelous  are 
thy  works,  O  Lord."  In  the  list  of  wonders  infinite, 
stand  these  the  foremost:  u  God  created  man:"  "  He 
prevents  him  from  sinking  back  into  annihilation." 

If  man  is  an  evolution  from  the  anthropoid  apes,  at 


MAN'S   INTELLECTUAL    NATURE.  83 

what  point  in  his  gradual,  and  almost  infinitely  protracted 
improvement,  did  he  become  possessed  of  immortality  ? 
— or  are  we  to  conclude  that  he  perishes  ?  At  what 
point  did  he  become  distinguishable  as  man,  beastiality 
giving  place  to  humanity  ? 


CHAPTER   V. 

MAN'S   MORAL  NATURE. 

Wide  as  is  the  divergence  in  intellectual  faculties  be- 
tween man  and  the  lower  animals,  in  moral  nature  the 
chasm  is  still  broader.  It  is  not  merely  a  difference  in 
degree,  but  in  kind,  animals  being  entirely  destitute  of 
moral  qualities  properly  so  called.  True,  they  possess 
social  instincts,  and  in  the  exercise  of  these  occasionally 
manifest  qualities  resembling  those  which  in  the  human 
family  are  denominated  ethical.  The  horse,  which  car- 
ries forward  a  process  akin  to  reasoning,  and  remem- 
bers places  which  it  has  frequently  visited,  seems  also  to 
have  a  measure  of  affection  for  its  companion,  and  even 
for  its  owner.  The  elephant,  which  may  be  teased  into 
a  frenzy  of  rage,  is  also  capable  of  appreciating  kind 
treatment,  and  possibly  feels  an  impulse  slightly  akin  to 
gratitude.  The  lioness,  fierce  as  her  nature  is,  has  affec- 
tion for  her  whelps.  A  monkey  has  been  known  to  come 
to  the  rescue  of  its  keeper  when  he  was  attacked  by  an 
enraged  baboon,  thereby  seeming  to  manifest  a  disposi- 
tion to  requite  remembered  kindnesses.  Cattle,  though 
sometimes  far  from  manifesting  sympathy  with  each 
others'  sufferings — as  when  the  wounded  are  driven  from 
the  herd — have  nevertheless  been  seen  to  stand  gazing 
on  a  dying  or  dead  companion.  The  queen-bee,  though 
she  kills  her  fertile  daughters,  evidently  has  sympathy 
with  all  the  members  of  her  well-regulated  household. 


MAN'S   MORAL    NATURE.  85 

It  is  no  unusual  thing  to  see  birds  expressing  extravagant 
joy  over  the  nest  which  contains  their  happy  young;  some 
even  build  houses  which  are  designed  and  exclusively 
used  for  social  pleasures.  Insects,  as  well  as  puppies 
and  lambs,  sport  and  wrestle  and  enter  with  zest  into 
amusements,  sympathizing  with  the  joys  of  others.  Crows 
have  been  known  to  feed  a  blind  companion,  thereby 
giving  evidence  of  possessing  the  rudiments  of  what  man 
regards  as  the  highest  virtue,  unselfish  care  for  the  aged 
and  the  helpless.  The  baboons  of  Abyssinia,  before  set- 
ting out  to  plunder  a  garden,  choose  a  leader  and  enjoin 
obedience  to  orders  on  the  members  of  the  company;  if 
any  one  on  the  journey  makes  a  noise,  so  endangering 
success,  his  nearest  companion  gives  him  a  slap  to  remind 
him  of  the  impropriety  of  disobeying  orders. 

Not  only  do  animals  appear  to  possess,  though  in  but 
slight  measure,  love,  gratitude,  sympathy,  obedience — 
qualities  usually  considered  as  possessing  moral  bearings — 
but  also  manifest  courage,  and  in  some  circumstances  the 
spirit  of  self-sacrifice.  The  bear,  with  intelligence  ade- 
quate to  the  procurement  of  food  for  her  cubs,  will  also 
rush  between  them  and  danger.  When  a  troop  of  mon- 
keys is  attacked  by  dogs,  the  males  will  hasten  to  the 
front,  showing  valor  and  a  readiness  to  sacrifice  them- 
selves for  the  good  of  the  company:  so  successfully  can 
they  cover  the  retreat  that  even  the  youngest  and  the 
feeblest  commonly- reach  the  mountains  in  safety;  there 
they  receive  the  praise  which  gratitude  prompts  the 
rescued  to  bestow. 

Perhaps  the  nearest  approach  made  by  the  inferior 
animals  to  what  we  denominate  conscience  is  the  appar- 
ent sense  of  shame,  bordering  on  remorse,  which  the 
whipped  cur  seems  to  experience  as  he  cringingly 
supplicates    a   return    of  his    master's    favor.     Professor 


$$  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Agassiz  thinks  that  dogs  possess  a  faculty  closely  akin 
to  conscience. 

Without  questioning  the  truth  of  these  and  similar 
facts,  we  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that  there  is  in  the 
lower  animals  no  quality  and  no  combination  of  qualities, 
from  which  the  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  as  it  exists 
among  men,  could  have  been  evolved.  In  this  affirma- 
tion we  are  sustained  by  the  facts  of  the  case  and  by  the 
testimony  of  naturalists  well  qualified  to  express  an 
opinion.  Mr.  George  Mivart,  though  an  ardent  advocate 
of  progressive  development  (not,  however,  of  natural 
selection,  nor  of  the  derivation  of  man's  mental  and 
moral  faculties  from  the  lower  animals),  boldly  asserts: 
"  There  is  no  trace  in  brutes  of  any  action  simulating 
morality  which  is  not  explicable  by  fear  of  punishment, 
by  the  hope  of  pleasure,  or  by  personal  affection."  * 

Those  evolutionists  who  pursue  their  theory  to  the  ex- 
tent of  developing  man's  higher  faculties  from  the  sim- 
iadae  hold  that  though  the  moral  sense  constitutes  the 
most  important  difference  between  man  and  the  lower 
animals,  still,  even  here,  the  difference  is  one  of  degree 
and  not  of  kind;  that  though  there  is  a  wide  diver- 
gence between  the  two  conceptions,  "the  expedient" 
and  ''the  morally  obligatory,"  they  are  nevertheless  the 
same  in  origin;  that  those  apes  which  possessed  an 
instinctive  liking  for  practices  useful  to  the  community, 
have,  through  natural  selection,  perpetuated  a  more 
numerous  offspring  than  those  possessing  tendencies  in 
an  opposite  direction;  that  the  liking  ultimately  became 
"  innate,"  and  in  man  has  gone  on  improving,  though 
moral  sense  is  feeble  in  savages,  till  it  has  culminated  in 
the  dictum,   "  Fiat  justitia,  ruat  caelum." 

The  advocates  of  this  theory  have  different  methods 

*  The  Genesis  of  Species  x  p.  211. 


MAN'S   MORAL    NATURE.  87 

of  designating  the  bond  that  unites  moral  sense,  as  exist- 
ent in  man,  with  the  germs  thereof  as  they  exist  in  infe- 
rior animals.  Some  maintain  that  it  has  had  its  origin  in 
the  principle  of  selfishness.  This  Darwin  pronounces 
absurd  {Descent  of  Man,  vol.  i.  p.  94),  and  affirms  that 
"  the  moral  sense  is  fundamentally  identical  with  the  so- 
cial instincts,"  which  "  have  certainly  been  developed  for 
the  general  good  of  the  community,''  "  Thus  any  animal 
whatever  {Descent  of  Man,  vol.  i.  p.  68.),  endowed 
with  well-marked  social  instincts,  would  inevitably  ac- 
quire a  moral  sense  or  conscience,  as  soon  as  its  intel- 
lectual powers  had  become  as  well  developed,  or  nearly 
as  well  developed,  as  in  man."  Again:  "The  first 
foundation  or  origin  of  moral  sense  lies  in  the  social 
instincts,  including  sympathy.  .  .  .  The  social  instincts 
would  give  the  impulse  to  act  for  the  good  of  the 
community."  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  evolves  conscience 
from  the  principle  of  utility,  as  existent  in  inferior 
animals.  He  declares,  "  There  have  been,  and  still  are, 
developing  in  the  race,  certain  fundamental  intuitions, 
and,  though  these  moral  intuitions  are  the  result  of  ac- 
cumulated experiences  of  utility  gradually  organized  and 
inherited,  they  have  come  to  be  quite  independent  of 
conscious  experience."  Others  evolve  it  from  the  regard 
manifested  by  animals,  to  the  highest  happiness  of  the 
largest  number.  In  the  opinion  of  Sir  John  Lubbock,  the 
author  of  Prehistoric  Times,  the  moral  sonse  has  its 
origin  in  "  deference  to  authority."  This,  on  examination 
turns  out  to  be  simple  utilitarianism;  since,  unless  there 
is  such  a  thing  as  absolute  morality  (which  he  denies), 
obedience  must  be  produced  either  by  the  hope  of  re- 
ward, or  the  fear  of  punishment,  or  the  mere  pleasure 
arising  from  obeying — the  motive  must  be  utility. 

It  thus  becomes  evident  that  conscience,  if  developed 


88  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

irom  the  social  instincts  o{  inferior  animals,  must  be 
regarded  as  having  its  genesis  in  selfishness,  in  the  desire 
to  secure  the  greatest  good  to  the  community,  or  in  a 
regard  to  the  highest  happiness  of  the  largest  number, 
no  other  sources  of  moral  principle  existing  in  animals— 
if  indeed  these  exist  and  are  possible  sources  of  moral 
intuitions. 

As  already  intimated,  the  advocates  of  this  theory 
admit  that  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  moral  element 
in  man;  that  this,  which  Darwin  designates  "  the  most 
noble  of  all  the  attributes  of  man,"  causes  him  to  differ 
most  profoundly  from  the  simial  family.     He  says: 

"A  moral  being  is  one  who  is  capable  of  comparing  his  past  and  future 
actions  or  motives,  and  of  approving  or  disapproving  of  them.  We  have 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  any  of  the  lower  animals  have  this  capacity.  .  .  In 
the  case  of  man,  who  alone  can  with  certainty  be  ranked  as  a  moral  being, 
actions  of  a  certain  class  are  called  moral,  whether  performed  deliberately  after 
a  struggle  with  opposing  motives,  or  from  the  effects  of  slowly-gained  habit,  or 
impulsively  through  instinct."— Descent  of  Man,  vol.  i.  p.  85. 

Surely,  then,  we  are  justified  in  affirming  that  it  will 
require  a  large  induction  of  facts,  larger  than  has  yet  been 
made,  to  establish  the  proposition  that  animals  possess- 
ing social  instincts  inevitably  acquire  a  moral  sense,  when 
there  is  a  corresponding  development  of  the  reasoning 
faculties. 

We  are  ready  to  concede  that  there  may  be  adduced 
from  the  animal  kingdom  examples  of  acts  simulating 
morality,  as  the  care  taken  of  the  young,  the  feeling  of 
love  between  members  of  the  same  fraternity,  the  post- 
ing of  sentinels  to  guard  against  the  approach  of  danger, 
hunting  in  company,  obedience  to  the  commands  of 
leaders,  etc.  But  acts  which  are  merely  conducive  to  the 
good  of  the  community  are  not  necessarily  moral;  indeed 
they  may  be  positively  immoral,  and  instead  of  tending 
to  quicken  the  sense  of  right  and  wrong,   may  tend  to 


MAN'S    MORAL    NATURE.  89 

blunt  it.  By  a  community  of  thieves,  who  secure  their 
booty  not  infrequently  through  murder,  indifference  to 
the  sufferings  of  the  helpless  may  come  to  be  considered 
advantageous.  If,  as  we  are  told,  cruelty  is  characteristic 
of  savages,  who  are  declared  to  be  an  intermediate  link 
between  the  ape-family  and  the  human,  how  are  we  to 
account  for  man's  intense  sympathy  with  suffering  ?  How 
explain  his  care  of  the  weak,  the  mentally  imbecile,  the 
aged,  and  the  worse  than  useless  ?  Certainly  it  is  not  bene- 
ficial to  society,  and  never  has  been,  that  the  feeblest 
members  should  impose  burdens  upon  the  strong,  and 
even  leave  enfeebled  children  as  a  legacy  of  woe  to  pos- 
terity. What  then  could  have  been  the  origin  of  man's 
noblest  charities  ?  How  does  it  happen  that  his  tender- 
est  emotions  prompt  to  self-sacrifice  in  the  erection  of 
hospitals,  and  insane  asylums,  and  inebriate  homes,  and 
Magdalen  retreats.  How  has  kindness  towards  animals, 
even  towards  those  which  are  useless  to  man,  ever  come 
to  be  regarded  as  a  virtue  ?  It  is  conceded  by  Mr.  Dar- 
win that  a  high  standard  of  morality  gives  no  advantage 
to  individuals  {Descent  of  Man,  vol.  i.  p.  159);  and 
when,  as  in  these  cases,  it  is  clearly  detrimental  to  the 
welfare  of  society,  how  could  it  have  become  established  ? 
Is  the  difference  one  of  degree  and  not  of  kind  ?  We 
are  conducted  through  a  labored  argument  the  design 
of  which  is  to  prove  that  the  more  enduring  instincts 
conquer  the  less  permanent.  Birds,  yielding  to  the  more 
powerful  impulse,  migrate  when  the  season  arrives,  leav- 
ing their  helpless  young  in  the  nest.  Who,  it  is  asked, 
can  say  that  the  joys  of  their  new  home  in  the  south 
are  not  clouded,  in  measure  at  least,  by  the  remembrance 
of  their  deserted  young  in  the  chilly  north?  It  is  con- 
jectured that  they  may  suffer  from  remorse,  deeply  regret- 
ting their  weakness  in  yielding  to  what  for  the  time  was 


90  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTI 

a  more  potent  desire.  To  civilized  men,  "  duty  "  is  indeed 
the  most  powerful  word  in  the  language;  but  why  may 
we  not  say  that  the  hound  "  ought  "  to  hunt  without  any 
regard  whatever  to  present  or  prospective  advantages  ? 

We  are  thus  given  to  understand  that  conscience, 
in  its  highest  functions,  when  it  acts  regardless  of  self- 
interest,  is  to  be  viewed  as  but  the  exercise  of  an  in- 
herited habit.  The  retriever  "  ought"  to  bring  his  game 
and  lay  it  at  his  master's  feet,  because  he  "  ought  "  to 
obey  an  impulse  transmitted  from  his  ancestors.  Man 
ought  to  do  right  even  though  it  may  not  conduce  to 
personal  advantage,  for  he  has  inherited  a  habit  which 
was  laboriously  evolved  from  the  social  instincts  of  the 
lower  animals. 

In  answer  to  this  specious  theory  we  may  very  properly 
ask,  Are  the  acts  to  which  conscience  prompts  always 
instinctive  ? — has  the  moral  sense  no  more  enduring 
foundation  than  an  inherited  habit  ? — does  it  not  testify 
to  the  existence  of  an  eternal  law  of  right  and  wrong  ? — 
do  not  its  mandates  come  to  us  bearing  the  seal  of  a 
just  God  ? — is  remorse  nothing  more  than  the  transient 
pain  which  results  from  disregarding  the  promptings  of 
inherited  habit  ? — this  anguish,  which  poets  have  depicted 
in  such  vivid  colors,  and  from  which  the  guilty  seek  to 
escape,  is  it  nothing  more  than  an  unpleasant  sensation 
arising  from  the  perception  that  one  instinctive  impulse 
has  been  yielded  to  rather  than  another  ?  Before  these 
and  similar  questions  can  be  answered  in  such  a  way  as 
to  cast  discredit  upon  conscience  as  an  independent  and 
heaven-delegated  power  there  must  evidently  be  a  more 
extended  array  of  arguments,  and  those  more  potent, 
than  any  yet  adduced.  Logic  has  an  arduous  task  to 
perform  before  a  majority  of  the  human  family  will 
believe    that    the    moral    sense    of  men    and    the    social 


MAN'S   MORAL    NATURE.  91 

instincts  of  inferior  animals  are  essentially  one,  differing 
in  degree  but  not  in  kind.  Though,  from  the  argument 
as  presented,  we  are  expected  to  infer  that  man  may  feel 
remorse  such  as  conscience  is  fitted  to  produce,  simply 
because  he  has  yielded  to  a  stronger  instinctive  desire, 
thereby  doing  what  judgment  pronounces  detrimental 
to  the  good  of  the  community,  we  resolutely  refuse  to 
gratify  the  cherished  expectation. 

Most  persons  believe  in  "  absolute  morality,"  main- 
taining that  notion  of  conscience  which  makes  it  to 
differ  from  even  the  noblest  of  mere  animal  instincts. 
It  is  viewed  as  erecting  its  own  standard  of  right  and 
compelling  one,  as  he  views  past  conduct,  to  approve  or 
condemn.  For  a  course  of  conduct  which  an  awakened 
moral  sense  disapproves,  no  matter  how  powerful  were 
the  temptations,  the  transgressor  is  forced  to  feel  regret, 
sometimes  keen  and  long-continued  remorse.  In  this 
respect  man  differs  from  the  animal  creation  almost  as 
widely  as  it  is  possible  to  conceive. 

As  already  intimated,  the  acceptance  of  the  proposed 
theory  carries  with  it  the  belief  that  "  the  right"  and  "  the 
useful,"  two  distinct  ideas,  are  essentially  identical  and 
have  a  common  origin.  Even  on  this  hypothesis,  the 
task  of  proving  that  the  moral  sense  of  man  was  developed 
from  the  social  instincts  of  apes  would  be  an  arduous 
one;  for  to  speak  of  social  instincts  having  their  origin 
in  selfishnesss  and  ripening  into  self-denial  appears 
absurd;  nor  is  there  less  absurdity,  in  assuming  that  a 
regard  to  the  highest  happiness  of  the  largest  number 
could  have  evolved  a  conscience  sufficiently  sensitive 
to  condemn  practices  which  a  majority  of  every  commu- 
nity must  have  considered  conducive  to  the  well-being 
of  all;  and  the  absurdity,  though  perhaps  less  easily 
comprehended,    is    but  little  diminished,  indeed  in  the 


92  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

minds  of  some  is  augmented,  by  supposing  that  the 
social  instincts  of  brutes  developed  a  moral  sense  capable 
of  enacting  and  enforcing  laws  which  no  amount  of  in- 
telligence, without  the  assistance  of  lessons  from  expe- 
rience, could  pronounce  well-adapted  to  promote  the 
good  of  society,  being  destructive,  apparently,  to  the 
prospective  as  well  as  to  the  present  interests  of  a  large 
majority.  How,  for  example,  could  man  have  acquired 
his  ideas  in  reference  to  honesty  ?  "  Honesty,"  as  Mr. 
Hutton  says,  "  must  have  been  associated  by  our  ances- 
tors with  many  unhappy  as  well  as  many  happy  conse- 
quences, and  we  know  that  in  ancient  Greece  dishonesty 
was  openly  and  actually  associated  with  happy  conse- 
quences." How  came  our  ancestors,  in  the  days  of 
"  miserable  savagery,"  or  in  their  previous  ape-condition, 
to  look  upon  marriage  within  certain  degrees  of  con- 
sanguinity as  improper  ?  "Savages,"  says  Mr.  Wallace, 
"  choose  their  wives  for  rude  health  and  physical  beauty." 
It  is  highly  improbable,  even  if  they  were  able  to  per- 
ceive resultant  evils,  that  they  could  be  induced  to 
condemn  incestuous  intercourse,  much  less  to  discontinue 
it.  And  yet,  among  many  savages,  so  great  is  the 
repugnance  to  such  unions  that  they  are  rigorously 
forbidden,  though  the  will  of  the  husband  alone  de- 
termines the  duration  of  the  marriage  contract.  Among 
the  Fiji-Islanders,  brothers  and  sisters,  mothers  and 
sons-in-law,  fathers  and  daughters-in-law,  brothers-in- 
law  and  sisters-in-law  are  forbidden  to  speak  to  each 
other  or  to  eat  from  the  same  dish.  In  Australia,  a  man 
may  steal  another  man's  wife,  but  he  may  not  have  a 
woman  of  the  same  name  as  his  own,  lest  possibly  she 
may  be  a  remote  relative.  The  Eskimos  frequently  ex- 
change wives  as  an  act  of  friendship,  but  care  is  taken 
to    prevent    the    union  of  blood-relatives.     This  abhor- 


MAN'S   MORAL    NATURE.  93 

rence  of  intercourse  within  prohibited  degrees  could 
hardly  have  originated  among  savages;  and  to  conjec- 
ture that  it  may  have  arisen  in  the  simial  family  is  to 
ignore  the  fact  that  monkeys  of  every  class  are  in  a 
pre-eminent  degree  exempt  from  sensitiveness  upon  such 
subjects. 

Nor  is  it  less  difficult  to  perceive  how  "the  advan- 
tageous" could  have  been  transmuted  into  self-sacrifice; 
into  temperance,  chastity,  truthfulness,  gratitude,  etc. 
Regard  to  the  well-being  of  society  is  not  the  only 
element  in  these  and  kindred  virtues.  They  evidently 
include  devotion  to  God.  It  is  perhaps  possible  to  con- 
ceive that  feelings  of  approbation  or  of  disapprobation, 
sufficiently  powerful  to  prove  advantageous  to  a  limited 
community,  may  have  been  transmitted  through  natural 
selection.  But  as  the  stream  cannot  rise  higher  than 
the  fountain,  it  is  impossible  to  conclude  that  these 
feeble  emotions  could  have  developed  the  ennobling  con- 
ception of  duty.  The  distinction  between  "  the  advan- 
tageous "  and  the  "obligatory"  is  so  fundamental  that 
the  idea  of  benefit  does  not  enter  into  the  idea  of  right. 
"  The  advantageous  "  and  "  the  pleasurable  "  are  not 
contained  in  the  idea  of  "  duty,"  not  even  in  germ-form. 
This  is  conceded  by  Herbert  Spencer,  the  philosophical 
exponent  of  evolution,  though  he  nevertheless  maintains 
that  "the  experiences  of  utility,  organized  and  consoli- 
dated through  all  past  generations  of  the  human  race, 
have  been  producing  corresponding  nervous  modifications 
.  .  .  which  have  no  apparent  basis  in  the  individual  expe- 
riences of  utility." 

It  is  moreover  worthy  of  note  that  the  theory  in  ques- 
tion proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  apes,  and  even 
inferior  animals,  possess  what  man  has  not  attained  to, 
an  unerring  instinct  telling  what  is  for  the  good  of  the 


9-1  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

largest  number;  nay,  more,  it  assumes  that  they  are  cap- 
able of  ignoring  the  lessons  of  experience  and  even  con- 
vincing their  companions  that  more  conscientious  courses 
would  result  in  greater  good,  not  to  the  individual,  pos- 
sibly not  even  to  the  existing  generation,  but  to  the  race 
in  the  lapse  of  centuries. 

To  believe  that  the  social  instincts  were  the  germi- 
nating principle  of  man's  moral  nature,  and  that,  by  the 
aid  of  the  intellect  and  through  the  force  of  unconquer- 
able habit,  they  ultimately  issued  into  the  golden  rule, 
requires  a  degree  of  credulity  which  few  can  hope  to 
reach;  and  to  conceive,  as  this  theory  does,  that  devotion 
to  God  and  self-sacrifice,  and  even  gratitude,  have  been 
developed  from. the  unselfishness  necessary  to  the  better 
preseveration  of  brute  communities  is,  in  the  opinion  of 
most  persons,  a  simple  impossibility. 

The  point  of  the  foregoing  process  of  reasoning  is  not 
blunted  by  saying,  The  result  merely  ensues  from  the 
survival  of  the  fittest;  for  how,  we  may  ask,  could  any 
considerable  number  within  the  limits  of  the  same  tribe 
become  possessed  of  the  moral  qualities  ?  Evidently 
they  could  not;  and  the  remainder  of  the  tribe  being  in- 
capable of  appreciating  this  high  moral  tone  could  not 
transmit  it;  nor  could  the  few,  since  the  powerful  influence 
of  the  many  would  destroy  the  slight  advances  made  by 
a  small  minority.  The  variations  of  individuals  become 
eliminated  by  the  mere  force  of  numbers.  Thus  the  lives 
of  the  more  moral  (rendered  more  moral  to  benefit  com- 
munity), would  be  a  self-sacrifice  without  the  faintest 
hope  of  benefitting  succeeding  generations — a  martyrdom 
such  as  man  has  never  been  called  upon  to  undergo. 

Darwin,  perceiving  the  cogency  of  this  line  of  reasoning, 
assigns  two  agencies  through  the  operation  of  which  he 
thinks  a  large  number  of  the  members  of  any  tribe  might 


MAN'S    MORAL    NATURE.  95 

have  become  possessed  of  these  social  and  moral  qualities; 
namely,  the  perception  that  assistance  is  the  loan  for 
assistance,  and  the  effect  of  praise  and  blame.  These, 
however,  must  be  powerless  just  where  potency  is 
needed. 

If  we  were  to  admit  that  well-defined  moral  qualities, 
having  their  foundation  in  utility,  may  possibly  have  been 
acquired  by  a  few  members  or  by  a  majority  of  some  tribe, 
could  it  be  shown  that  these  qualities  would  probably  be 
transmitted  from  generation  to  generation  ? — could  it  be 
proved  that  they  actually  were  transmitted?  Neither,  as  we 
think.  It  is  difficult  to  discover  any  ground  for  the  be- 
lief that  a  majority  of  any  monkey  tribe  could  transmit 
moral  qualities  which  have  an  origin  no  nobler  and  a 
character  no  more  enduring  than  that  imparted  to  them 
by  the  survival  of  individuals  having  infinitesimal  measures 
of  increased  regard  to  the  good  of  the  community. 
Moral  qualities,  such  as  connect  themselves  with  a  law 
inwoven  with  human  nature,  are  indeed  transmissible. 
It  is  undeniable,  however,  that  senseless  customs,  super- 
stitious practices  and  meaningless  moral  distinctions, 
though  widely  prevalent  and  powerful  for  centuries,  can- 
not be  transmitted  from  parents  to  children.  The  Hin- 
doo father  does  not  transmit  his  horror  of  unclean  food, 
though  he  may  transmit  his  detestation  of  falsehood. 
The  Mohammedan  mother  has  been  known  to  transmit 
her  inclination  to  theft — as  have  also  wealthy  parents  in 
civilized  society,  as  is  testified  to  by  kleptomania — but 
she  has  not  been  known  to  transmit,  except  by  instruc- 
tion, her  shame  of  appearing  in  public  with  unveiled  face. 
The  children  of  the  Hottentot  may  indeed  inherit  his 
veneration  of  some  higher  power,  but  not  his  supersti- 
tious reverence  for  meaningless  religious  customs.  Facts 
such  as  these,  and  they  are  numerous,  would  certainly 


9G  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

seem  to  indicate  that  moral  laws  are  an  essential  and 
not  an  accidental  part  of  human  nature;  that  they  are 
an  indestructible  portion  of  man's  constitution  and  not 
something  engrafted  thereon. 

That  the  moral  sense  possesses  an  authority  such  as 
is  not  possible  to  inherited  tendencies,  even  should  they  be- 
come a  powerful  bias  regularly  transmitted,  is  the  nearly 
unanimous  conviction  of  moral  philosophers.  The  ap- 
proval of  right  and  the  disapprobation  of  wrong  are  ac- 
companied with  a  deep-seated  persuasion  of  supernatural 
authority.  Truth,  honesty,  the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice — 
all  the  virtures — are  considered  praise-worthy  and  oblig- 
atory, not  merely,  nor  mainly,  because  the  noblest  of  the 
human  family  have  commended  them,  but  in  a  pre-emi- 
nent degree  because  they  are  believed  to  have  the  sanc- 
tion of  a  Supreme  Being,  by  whom  the  love  of  them  was 
inwoven  with  man's  better  nature.  In  like  manner,  false- 
hood, envy,  selfishness,  rascality — all  the  vices — are 
deemed  despicable,  not  simply  because  moralists  have 
dared  to  condemn  them,  nor  because  of  a  wide-spread 
conviction  that  they  are  poorly  adapted  to  secure  either 
present  or  future  advantages,  but  because  most  persons 
are  forced  to  conclude  that  man's  nobler  nature,  as  it 
came  from  the  hand  of  its  Creator,  involuntarily  con- 
demns them.  It  would  be  difficult  to  assign  any  other 
satisfactory  reason.  Certainly  the  most  brilliant  success 
has  sometimes  accompanied  craft,  dissimulation,  knavery, 
and  selfishness. 

Again:  if  the  social  instincts  are  the  basis  of  con- 
science, all  persons,  or  nearly  all,  ought  to  approve  what 
society  recognizes  as  right.  Such,  however,  is  not  the 
case.  Every  person,  besides  being  capable  of  forming 
estimates  respecting  his  own  acts,  also  forms  judgments 
in  reference  to  the  conduct  of  others,  thoroughly  persuaded 


MAN'S   MORAL    NATURE.  97 

that  right  is  right  and  wrong  is  wrong  independent  of 
man's  beliefsand practices.  His  judgment  is  independent. 
He  believes  himself  accountable  to  God  alone.  As  a 
right  delegated  from  heaven  he  exercises  the  privilege  of 
holding  others  to  a  standard  of  rectitude, though  he  admits 
that  man's  conceptions  of  duty  vary,  owing  to  prejudice 
and  ignorance.  Whilst  deeming  it  folly  to  condemn  the 
conduct  of  brutes,  because  they  possess  no  moral  sense, 
he  is  impelled  by  an  inward  necessity  to  entertain  an 
opinion  respecting  the  moral  acts  of  every  sane  person. 
Convinced  that  all  possess  conscience,  which,  though 
often  resembling  a  palace  in  ruins,  yet  speaks  of  a  more 
glorious  past  and  invites  to  a  nobler  future,  he  considers 
no  argument  necessary  to  prove  that  it  is  an  original  ele- 
ment in  human  nature.  The  denial  of  this,  on  the  part 
of  an  occasional  reasoner,  has  little  or  no  effect  in  de- 
stroying his  faith  in  the  validity  of  the  argument.  Athe- 
ists exist.  They  have  advanced  labored  arguments  to 
substantiate  their  position.  This  has  not  induced  theo- 
logians to  concede  that  there  is  no  argument  in  the 
testimony  of  the  human  family  to  the  existence  of  a 
Supreme  Being. 

Will  any  one  pretend  to  affirm  that  this  "  social  in- 
stinct "  theory  accounts  for  the  fact  that  an  act  is  deemed 
praise-worthy  in  exact  proportion  to  the  unselfishness 
that  characterizes  it  ?  The  existence  of  unselfish  qualities 
in  our  ape-like  progenitors  would  have  impeded  the 
improvement  of  the  species.  The  development  of  useful 
qualities  is  perhaps  conceivable,  but  the  development  of 
qualities  tending  to  deterioration  is  irreconcilable  with 
the  theory.  We  may  safely  challenge  the  evolutionist 
to  furnish  an  instance  in  which  "  the  disadvantageous  " 
has  been  transmuted  into  conscience.  His  chances  for 
success  are  slight. 


98  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

So  cogent  is  the  argument  which  we  have  attempted 
to  outline,  that  most  persons,  even  those  who  deny  a 
supernatural  revelation,  are  ready  to  admit  that  the 
clearest  evidences  of  man's  having  been  created  in  God's 
image  are  found  in  his  moral  nature.  To  see  beauty  in 
goodness,  and  charity,  and  forgiveness,  and  love;  to 
admire  them  even  when  they  are  not  permitted  to  mold 
the  life;  to  condemn  wrong-doing,  even  when  practicing 
it,— these  are  strong  proofs  that  conscience  is  an  essential 
element  of  human  nature,  the  direct  workmanship  of  "  a 
hand  divine." 


CHAPTER    VI. 

MAN'S  RELIGIOUS  NATURE. 

It  is  nearly  impossible  to  resist  the  conviction  that  the 
hypothesis  of  man's  origin  from  the  ape-family  is  en- 
vironed with  difficulties  more  numerous  and  more  serious 
than  those  which  connect  themselves  with  the  theory  of 
his  immediate  creation.  Nor  is  any  one  disposed  to  deny 
that  difficulties  which  are  formidable  in  connection  with 
the  assumed  transmutation  of  animal  instincts  into  rea- 
son and  conscience  become  nearly  or  quite  insurmount- 
able in  conjunction  with  the  question,  "  Is  man's  religious 
nature  an  evolution  ? "  Moreover,  every  unbiased  in- 
vestigator will  be  inclined  to  concede  that  the  arguments 
presented  by  the  advocates  of  the  development-theory 
become  fewer  and  feebler  in  exact  proportion  as  the  more 
intricate  portions  of  the  problem  come  under  review,  the 
reasoning  being  weakest  just  where  it  should  be  the 
most  powerful.  The  greatest  force  is  laid  upon  the  evo- 
lution of  the  physical  nature,  where  confessedly  man  ap- 
proximates most  nearly  to  the  brute-creation;  less,  upon 
that  of  the  mental,  where  manifestly  the  difference  is 
wider;  still  less,  upon  that  of  the  moral,  where  the  di- 
vergence is  even  greater;  least  of  all,  upon  that  of  the 
religious,  where  the  difference  amounts  to  a  measureless 
chasm.  This  will  become  apparent  if  we  present  in 
succinct  form  all  the  arguments  we  have  been  able  to 
discover   in    the   many   books    which    assert  or    assume 


100  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

man's  evolution  from  inferior  animals.  These  arguments, 
as  we  might  expect,  proceed  upon  the  assumption  that 
civilized  man,  in  reaching  his  present  advanced  position, 
has  passed  through  a  state  of  absolute  savagery. 

The  task  now  before  us  is  to  answer  the  following 
argument: — 

"  There  is  no  evidence  that  man  was  aboriginally  en- 
dowed with  the  ennobling  belief  in  the  existence  of  an 
Omnipotent  God "  (Darwin's  Descent  of  Man,  vol.  i. 
p.  62).  "There  is  abundant  evidence  ....  that  nu- 
merous races  have  existed  and  still  exist,  who  have  no 
idea  of  one  or  more  gods,  and  who  have  no  words  in 
their  language  to  express  such  an  idea  "  {Idem,  p.  63). 
The  Paraguay  Indians,  according  to  Azara,  had  no  ideas 
of  religion.  Sir  John  Lubbock  says,  "  According  to  the 
missionaries,  neither  the  Patagonians  nor  the  Arauca- 
nians  had  any  ideas  of  prayer,  or  any  vestige  of  religious 
worship"  [Prehistoric  Times,  p.  536).  Among  the 
Fuegians,  Admiral  Fitzroy  "  never  witnessed  or  heard 
of  any  act  of  a  decidedly  religious  nature  "  {Idem,  p. 
541).  According  to  Crantz,  the  Greenland  Eskimos 
"  have  neither  a  religious  nor  idolatrous  worship,  nor  so 
much  as  any  ceremonies  to  be  perceived  tending  thereto." 
Heme  states  that  the  North  American  Indians  had 
no  religion:  Colden,  that  the  celebrated  "five  nations" 
of  Canada  had  no  religion  and  no  word  for  God.  "  Bur- 
net," says  Lubbock,  "found  no  semblance  of  worship 
among  the  Comanches."  "  The  Andaman  Indians  are 
stated,"  says  Lubbock,  "  to  have  no  idea  of  a  Supreme 
Being"  {Prehistoric  Times,  p.  437).  "The  Austra- 
lians have  no  systematized  religion,  nor  any  worship  or 
prayer"  {Idem,  p.  447).  Some  savages,  it  thus  appears, 
have  been  discovered  who  have  no  religion  whatever- - 
some    say   very   many.     What    follows?     "Such,"   says 


MAN'S    RELIGIOUS   NATURE.  101 

Lubbock,  "was  probably  the  condition  of  primeval  man." 
Why  draw  this  inference  ?  "  Because  it  is  difficult  to 
believe  that  any  people  who  once  possessed  religion 
would  ever  entirely  lose  it."  Wherein  consists  the  diffi- 
culty ?  "  Religion  appeals  so  strongly  to  the  hopes  and 
the  fears  of  men,  it  is  so  great  a  consolation  in  times  of 
sorrow  and  sickness,  that  it  is  hard  to  think  that  any 
nation  would  ever  abandon  it  altogether."  Though  so 
many  savage  tribes  are  utterly  destitute  of  religion,  still, 
"  if  we  include  under  the  term  religion  the  belief  in 
unseen  or  spiritual  agencies,  the  case  is  wholly  different; 
for  this  belief  seems  to  be  almost  universal  with  the 
less  civilized  races  "  (Darwin's  Descent  of  Man,  vol.  i. 
p.  63).  Though  a  savage  is  utterly  incapable  of  expe- 
riencing religious  devotion,  which  consists  in  love,  sub- 
mission, fear,  and  gratitude;  nevertheless,  as  he  passes 
from  savagery  to  civilization,  he  converts  belief  in  unseen 
influences  into  fetishism,  polytheism,  pantheism,  mono- 
theism. Thus  the  higher  forms  of  religion  are  evidently 
products  of  human  thought,  man's  religious  ideas  becom- 
ing more  complex  and  more  spiritual  as  he  advances  in 
intellectual  and  moral  attainments.  To  this  spiritual 
sentiment  we  have  some  distant  approach  in  the  deep 
love  of  a  dog  for  his  master.  Indeed,  Professor  Braubach 
"  goes  so  far  as  to  maintain  that  a  dog  looks  on  his 
master  as  a  god." 

The  first  sentence  in  the  above  paragraph  is  a  sweep- 
ing assertion  adroitly  worded  and  quite  manifestly  de- 
signed to  clear  the  ground  preparatory  to  the  establish- 
ment of  an  opposite  theory.  Prone,  as  evolutionists  too 
frequently  are,  to  assign  existing  effects  to  causes  which 
have  not  been  proved  adequate,  Mr.  Darwin  seems  dis- 
posed to  consider  it  unnecessary  to  account  for  man's  re- 
ligious nature — simply  denying   that  it   was   an   original 


102  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

endowment  and  leaving  his  readers  to  conclude  that  of 
course  it  is  a  subsequent  evolution.  Is  this  denial  so 
easy  of  acceptance  that  it  may  be  safely  left  unsup- 
ported ?  or  does  it  stand  unaccompanied  with  proof  be- 
cause of  the  difficulty  in  presenting  evidence  to  substan- 
tiate it  ?  "  No  evidence"?  Whence  then  the  basis  in 
which  inheres  the  sense  of  obligation  to  moral  law  ? 
Whence  the  conviction,  which  is  quite  general,  that  our 
relations  to  Deity  are  more  intimate  and  more  powerful 
than  the  tie  resulting  from  commands  arbitrarily  given  ? 
How  does  it  happen  that  so  many  entertain  the  convic- 
tion that  there  is  a  Supreme  Being  who  possesses  moral 
excellencies  which  man's  constitution  forces  him  to  re- 
vere ?  Why  is  the  command,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God,"  capable  of  influencing  the  human  family  ?  Is 
it  merely  because  the  religious  emotions  have  congealed 
into  a  confirmed  habit  through  the  operation  of  Natural 
Selection  ?  Then  whence  came  the  original  germ  of 
these  emotions  ?  These  savages,  who  are  declared  to 
be,  and  to  have  been  through  all  past  generations,  entirely 
devoid  of  religion,  why  are  they  susceptible  to  spiritual 
ideas  ?  How  did  they  become  capable  of  conceiving  of 
God  as  a  being  of  truth,  goodness,  love,  and  power  ?  If 
their  ancestors  were  not  endowed  aboriginally  with  the 
ennobling  belief  in  the  existence  of  an  Omnipotent  God, 
they  must  have  been  endowed  with  a  religious  nature, 
unless  we  are  prepared  to  admit,  contrary  to  the  teach- 
ing of  evolution,  that  this  noblest  of  faculties  may  be 
developed,  not  by  the  tardy  process  of  Natural  Selec- 
tion, but  in  a  few  months  by  instruction.  To  be  with- 
out religion  is  one  thing,  to  be  incapable  of  becoming 
religious  is  another.  Which  of  the  two  are  we  to  under- 
stand was  man's  original  condition  ?  Evidently  the  lat- 
ter was  not  his  condition;  for  the  irreligious  savage,  who 


MAN'S    RELIGIOUS    NATURE.  103 

is  declared  to  be  in  this  respect  as  far  advanced  as  the 
first  man,  cannot  only  be  inspired  with  a  conception  of 
God  as  the  embodiment  in  infinite  measure  of  all  moral 
excellency,  but  can  be  induced  to  give  expression  to  the 
reverential  feelings  of  his  heart — indeed,  he  is  self-moved 
to  worship.  Reveal  to  him  the  evidences  of  divine  love 
exerted  in  bestowing  blessings  and  he  is  forced  to  bow  in 
adoring  gratitude.  This  religious  element,  to  which  there 
is  not  the  slightest  approximation  in  the  lower  animals, 
enables  his  soul  to  cling  to  his  Father  above  even  as  the 
ivy  clings  to  the  rock. 

In  reference  to  those  tribes  which  are  said  to  be  desti- 
tute of  religion,  there  is  conflicting  testimony;  though, 
even  if  they  were  without  "  the  ennobling  belief  in  the  ex- 
istence of  an  Omnipotent  God,"  and  even  without  any  re- 
ligious ideas,  it  would  not  follow  that  they  were  destitute 
of  a  religious  nature.  Besides,  whether  they  maybe  said 
to  have  religion  depends  upon  the  definition  we  give  to 
the  term.  We  are  ready  to  concede  that  if  by  religion  is 
meant  a  reasonably  correct  conception  of  a  Supreme  Be- 
ing and  of  accountability  to  Him,  or  if  the  term  is  in- 
tended as  an  equivalent  for  moral  convictions  which  impel 
to  purer  lives,  or  if  it  includes  definite  ideas  in  reference 
to  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  no  ideas  except  those 
which  are  definite;  then,  undoubtedly,  there  are  savage 
tribes  devoid  of  religion:  but  we  insist  that  if  religion  is  a 
term  which  covers  belief  in,  and  fear  of,  mysterious  beings 
more  powerful  than  men,  if  it  may  be  applied  to  a  vague 
apprehension  of  evil  consequences  as  penalties  of  wrong- 
doing, if  it  bears  any  relation  whatever  to  witchcraft, 
if  it  includes  ill-defined  notions  in  reference  to  the  con- 
tinued existence  of  the  soul  after  death,  then  savages, 
probably  without  a  single  exception,  are  religious.  The 
universality  of  these  beliefs  among  savages  is  conceded 


101  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

by  all,  even  by  Lubbock.  "  Even  in  his  religion,  if  he 
has  any,  the  savage  creates  for. himself  a  new  source  of 
terror,  and  peoples  the  world  with  invisible  enemies " 
{Prehistoric  Times,  p.  595).  "  It  is  not  too  much  to 
say  that  the  horrible  dread  of  unknown  evil  hangs  like 
a  thick  cloud  over  savage  life,  and  embitters  every 
pleasure"  {Idem,  p.  583). 

The  Paraguay  Indians  were  believers  in  witchcraft  and 
in  mysterious  evil  beings.  Who  is  able  to  prove  that 
these  beliefs  were  not  the  wretched  remnants  of  a  spir- 
itual worship  once  enjoyed  by  their  more  enlightened 
ancestors?  The  inhabitants  of  the  southern  portion  of 
South  America  have  a  vague  notion  and  a  horrible  fear 
of  a  Supernatural  Being  who  is  believed  to  reside  in  the 
thick  swampy  forests:  Falkner  affirms  that  the  Patago- 
nians  are  polytheists.  Though  Admiral  Fitzroy  "never 
witnessed  among  the  Fuegians  any  act  decidedly  relig- 
ious," they  certainly  believe  in  a  mysterious  being,  if  the 
testimony  of  reliable  travelers  has  any  worth.  The  fun- 
eral rites  of  the  Eskimos  indicate  belief  in  the  immortality 
of  the  soul.  It  will  require  more  than  the  testimony  of 
Heme  to  prove  that  the  North  American  Indians  had  no 
religion.  The  almost  uniform  testimony  of  those  most 
conversant  with  the  facts  leaves  little  room  to  doubt  that, 
with  scarcely  an  exception,  they  possessed  religious  be- 
liefs and  engaged  in  acts  of  worship. 

"  Lo,  the  poor  Indian,  whose  untutored  mind 
Sees  God  in  clouds,  or  hears  him  in  the  wind; 
His  soul  proud  science  never  taught  to  stray 
Far  as  the  solar  walk,  or  milky  way; 
Yet  simple  nature  to  his  hope  has  given, 
Behind  the  cloud-topped  hill,  an  humbler  heaven." 

It  may  be  true,  as  Lubbock  affirms,  that  "  the  Aus- 
tralians have  no  systematized  religion,  nor  any  worship 
or  prayer,"  but,  according  to  his  own  concession,  "most 


MAN'S    RELIGIOUS    NATURE.  105 

of  them  believe  in  evil  spirits  and  all  have  a  great  dread 
of  the  dark  and  of  witchcraft;  "  and  the  burial  of  imple- 
ments and  arms  with  the  dead  is  considered  as  testimony 
to  belief  in  the  continued  existence  of  the  soul. 

The  Fiji-Islanders  possessed  a  mythology  resembling 
that  of  Greece  and  Rome — having  gods  of  peace,  of  war, 
of  agriculture,  of  good,  of  evil,  etc.  They  had  temples, 
pyramidal  in  form,  which  were  erected  on  terraced 
mounds  as  those  of  Central  America.  They  also  vener- 
ated upright  stones,  as  the  ancient  Druids  did.  So  strong 
was  their  faith  in  a  future  state,  and  so  potent  their  con- 
viction that  as  they  left  this  world  so  would  they  con- 
tinue eternally,  that  children  as  an  act  of  religion  buried 
their  parents  alive  ere  the  infirmities  of  age  should  come 
on — the  parents  cordially  and  joyously  acquiescing.  It 
was  a  solemn  religious  duty,  a  sacred  filial  obligation. 
Children  and  parents  were  alike  interested  in  securing 
departure  to  a  better  land  while  strength  and  health 
remained  unimpaired.  The  custom  we  may  properly 
regard  as  horrible  to  the  last  degree,  but  it  testifies  to 
strong  faith  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  even  to 
kindliness  of  disposition,  though  it  is  indeed  a  kindliness 
begotten  of  a  false  philosophy. 

We  might  instance  other  savages — many  of  them 
among  the  lowest,  as  the  Hottentots  and  the  Bushmen — 
who  undoubtedly  possess  religious  beliefs.  Enough  evi- 
dence has  been  presented,  however,  to  answer  our  pur- 
pose. Certainly  he  who  takes  the  pains  to  examine  the 
facts  will  be  convinced  that  a  majority  of  savages,  if 
not  all,  have  some  religious  ideas  and  engage  in  acts 
of  worship,  though  it  is  true  that  these  are  frequently 
horrid  in  the  extreme. 

In  weighing  the  testimony  presented  by  Lubbock  and 
others,  it  is  well  to  bear   in    mind   that   travelers    may 


106  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

easily  be  mistaken;  that  some  are  careless;  that  others 
may  entertain  strong  prejudices;  that  even  the  most 
cautious  may  be  deceived,  for  there  are  tribes,  partic- 
ularly in  Africa  according  to  Livingstone,  who  con- 
sider it  sacrilege  to  acknowledge  to  strangers  their  faith 
in  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Being.  Even  to  hint  at 
His  attributes  is  regarded  as  likely  to  entail  the  most 
terrible  penalties. 

Even  suppose  it  has  been  proved,  or  shall  be  proved, 
that  some  savage  tribes  have  no  religion  whatever,  does 
it  follow  that  "  such  was  probably  the  condition  cf  prime- 
val man  "  ?  Certainly  not:  for  the  majority  have  some 
form  of  religious  faith.  Why  infer  that  the  few  are  more 
likely  to  represent  the  condition  of  our  ancestors  than 
the  many  ?  Is  it  easier  to  believe  that  the  many  have 
M  evolved  "  religion  than  that  the  few  may  have  lost  it  ? 
Is  improvement  in  religion  more  frequent  than  deteri- 
oration ?  Is  religious  faith  one  of  the  few  things  which 
man  has  never  lost  ?  The  fact  that  man,  whether  sav- 
age or  civilized,  both  collectively  and  individually,  may 
be  destitute  of  religion,  has  as  much  weight  in  proving 
that  human  nature  may  sneeringly  disregard  its  highest 
interests  till  degeneration  ensues,  as  in  proving  that  its 
aboriginal  condition  was  one  devoid  of  spiritual  emotions. 
Certainly  the  loss  of  these,  so  far  at  least  as  they  may  be 
operative  for  good,  is  not  a  thing  so  infrequent  as  to 
render  it  improbable  that  any  barbarous  tribes  should 
have  abandoned  them.  Manifestly  the  appeals  of  false 
systems  of  faith  to  man's  hopes  and  fears  are  insufficient 
to  keep  the  baser  nature  in  subjection.  Experience  has 
shown  that  in  many  instances  even  the  claims  of  true 
religion  have  been  inadequate  to  prevent  the  vicious  from 
spitefully  disowning  them.  Are  we  not  justified,  there- 
fore, in  concluding  that  reason  sanctions  the  declaration 


MAN'S    RELIGIOUS   NATURE.  107 

of  Paul,  made  in  reference  to  the  Gentile  world,  "  Even 
as  they  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge, 
God  gave  them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind"?  ''For  this 
cause  God  shall  send  them  strong  delusion,  that  they 
should  believe  a  lie." 

It  is  conceded  that  among  savages  the  belief  in  spirit- 
ual agencies  is  almost  or  q.uite  universal.  This  is  granted 
by  both  Darwin  and  Lubbock — indeed,  is  strongly  as- 
serted. Does  not  this  yield  the  ground  upon  which  their 
argument  is  based  ?  No  one  claims  that  savage  races 
are  civilized  nations.  Their  beliefs  must  correspond 
with  their  condition.  Degraded  in  morals  and  degraded 
in  intellect,  could  they  be  otherwise  than  degraded  in  re- 
ligion ?  Does  the  mere  fact  that  there  are  degraded  sys- 
tems of  faith  prove  that  man's  progenitors  were  irreligious 
savages  ?  Then  the  simple  fact  that  there  are  ennobling 
systems  of  faith  is  still  more  potent  in  proving  that  the 
first  man  was  an  enlightened  theist.  The  former  argu- 
ment proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  because  the 
religious  element  is  feeble  or  perverted  in  savages,  there- 
fore it  had  no  existence  in  primitive  man;  the  latter 
bases  itself  upon  the  fact  that  as  the  religious  element 
is  universal,  existing  even  in  degraded  barbarians,  and 
powerful  in  intellectual  nations,  therefore  it  must  have 
existed  in  its  noblest  form  in  the  person  of  man's  pro- 
genitor. If  the  belief  of  savages  in  some  mysterious  being 
or  in  some  unseen  influence  establishes  the  theory  that 
man's  primeval  condition  was  one  of  irreligious  sav- 
agery, then  the  existence  among  civilized  nations,  and 
especially  among  the  ancient  Egyptians,  Assyrians,  and 
Tyrians,  of  elevating  religious  conceptions,  proves  that 
the  first  man  was  an  intelligently  religious  being.  Since 
spiritual  ideas  prevail,  in  many  instances  even  among 
savages,  they  must  have  descended  from  pious  ancestors. 


108  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  concession  in  question 
was  intended  to  look  in  an  opposite  direction.  It  was 
designed  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  reception  of  this 
proposition,  4<  Belief  in  spiritual  agencies  would  easily 
pass  into  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  one  or  more  gods." 
It  was  necessary  to  discover  among  barbarians  a  germ 
from  which  religion  might  be  developed,  for  it  is  some- 
what difficult  to  understand  how  evolution  can  produce 
entirely  new  faculties,  though  this  is  a  necessary  part  of 
its  arduous  task.  The  existence  among  rude  tribes  of 
an  indefinable  dread  of  some  mysterious  being,  aids  our 
opponents  in  marking  one  stage  in  the  journey  passed 
from  apedom  to  manhood.  It  assists  in  producing  the 
conviction  that  during  the  period  prior  to  the  develop- 
ment of  the  religious  nature,  no  agencies  tending  to  its 
production  were  needed,  since  in  a  comparatively  few 
centuries  an  undefined  awe  has  effected  changes  so  vast 
and  ennobling.  If  we  can  be  induced  to  admit  that 
theism  has  been  developed  from  superstition,  it  will  be 
easier  to  admit  that  superstition  has  been  evolved  from 
an  animal's  respect  for  superior  power  and  intelligence — 
thus  the  entire  religious  nature,  complex  in  its  character 
and  having  vital  connections  with  all  man's  faculties, 
will  be  accepted  as  a  gradual  evolution.  But  does  belief 
in  spiritual  agencies  easily  pass,  unassisted  by  instruction, 
into  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  one  or  more  gods  ? 
What  savage  tribe,  unaided  by  instructors  from  without, 
has  ever  abandoned  its  superstitions  for  an  intelligent 
faith  ?  What  tribe  has  gradually  worked  itself  into  poly- 
theism and  through  that  into  monotheism  ? 

The  feeling  of  the  barbarian  towards  superior  beings 
is,  we  arc  told,  like  that  of  the  horse  or  the  dog  towards 
his  master.  Until  this  has  been  proved  no  notice  need 
be  taken  of  it;  when  it  has  been  proved  christians  will 


MAN'S    RELIGIOUS   NATURE.  109 

have  fresh  occasion  for  glorying.  They  will  be  justified 
:n  rejoicing  that  Christianity  has  such  potency,  being  able 
not  merely  to  evolve  theism  out  of  atheism,  but  capable 
even  of  developing  the  doctrine  of  the  soul's  immortality 
out  of  the  vague  conceptions  of  miserable  savages;  that 
possibly  the  cow,  the  tree,  and  the  house,  as  well  as  man, 
may  continue  existence  upon  the  sunny  plains  of  Bolotoo; 
nay,  being  even  equal  to  the  task  of  teaching  the  chris- 
tian code  of  morals  to  those  who  in  their  primitive  state 
are  incapable  of  distinguishing  right  from  wrong,  and 
who  cannot  count  more  than  three.  That  our  opponent's 
theory  furnishes  the  means  of  flattering  human  nature 
can  scarcely  be  denied;  and  its  advocates  have  employed 
it  in  some  instances  quite  liberally. 

In  the  face  of  incontrovertible  facts,  have  we  the 
right  to  maintain  that  man  has  been  continuously  ad- 
vancing in  religious  knowledge  ?  Most  investigators 
say,  No.  Max  Miiller  affirms,  "  If  there  is  one  thing 
which  a  comparative  study  of  religions  places  in  the 
clearest  light,  it  is  the  inevitable  decay  to  which  every 
religion  is  exposed."  An  unbiased  examination  of  those 
which  have  prevailed  since  B.  C.  2000  will  evidence  the 
difficulty  of  believing  that  the  christian's  ennobling  con- 
ception of  Deity  is  the  mere  product  of  human  thought. 
That  religions,  with  few  if  any  exceptions,  have  deterio- 
rated is  an  undeniable  fact;  that  they  have  become  with 
successive  centuries  more  elevating  in  their  nature,  more 
spiritual  in  their  conceptions,  purer  in  morality,  and  less 
meaningless  in  the  ceremonies  employed  has  not  been 
proved.  On  the  contrary  it  can  be  shown,  we  believe, 
that  the  earliest  religions  of  which  traces  exist  were  com- 
paratively pure,  and  simple  in  their  ceremonies — were 
forms  of  monotheism.  That  such  was  the  case  in  ancient 
Egypt   is   generally   conceded.      As   we   go   backwards 


110  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION 

through  its  successive  dynasties — through  the  New,  the 
Middle,  and  the  Old  Empires — till  we  reach  the  remote 
period  when  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt  were  consolidated 
into  one  empire  under  Menes,  we  discover  more  spiritual 
forms  of  worship  till  we  reach  monotheism.  The  asser- 
tion that  civilized  man  has  passed  successively  through 
fetishism,  polytheism,  etc.,  is  incapable  of  proof;  nay,  it 
is  in  the  face  of  well  established  facts. 

"  Religion  once  was  natural, 
Priests  made  it  mystery,  offerings  made  it  gain; 
To  roast  fat  oxen  altars  next  were  reared, 
And  priests  ate  roast  meat  while  the  people  starved." 

To  say  that  religion  is  the  product  of  human  thought 
is  to  do  more  than  enter  a  protest  against  emotional 
forms  of  piety;  it  is  a  denial  that  man  came  from  the 
hand  of  his  Maker  a  religious  being.  To  consider  the 
knowledge  which  comes  to  us  through  the  laws  of  thought 
the  sole  source  of  religion,  is  somewhat  like  tracing  the 
river  to  the  stagnant  pool  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain, 
but  refusing  to  press  to  the  fountain  that  bursts  forth 
from  the  sides  of  the  everlasting  hills.  To  believe  that 
religion  is  man's  production  may  produce  a  pleasant  sen- 
sation, but  it  fails  to  meet  the  demands  of  a  rigid  inves- 
tigation. If  it  is  the  result  of  human  thought,  why  are 
all,  even  lowest  savages,  susceptible  to  its  impressions  ? 

Though  there  are  some  reasoners  who  are  disposed  to 
assert  that  there  is  in  nature,  independent  of  a  Superin- 
tending Being,  an  orderly  arrangement  which  evinces  the 
existence  of  an  all-pervading  intelligence,  and  that  this 
intelligence,  in  whatsoever  organisms  it  manifests  itself, 
is  self-evolved — the  same  in  kind,  differing  merely  in 
degree — and  that  religion  is  a  result  of  self-acquired 
knowledge;  still,  it  is  safe  to  affirm  that  the  majority  of 
the  human  family  can  never  be  induced  to  surrender  the 


MAN'S    RELIGIOUS    NATURE.  HI 

belief  that  the  spiritual  element  in  human  nature  is  an 
original  and  essential  characteristic,  the  immediate  crea- 
tion of  the  First  Cause  of  all  things. 

Even  granting  that  the  religious  sentiment  principally 
"  busies  itself  with  a  wish,  a  hope  and  a  fear,"  it  does  not 
follow  that  it  has  no  nobler  origin.  Because  a  philos- 
opher employs  his  reasoning  powers  upon  the  meta- 
physics of  religion,  are  we  at  liberty  to  infer  that  his 
discursive  faculties  had  their  origin  in  the  love  of 
abstract  thought  ? 

This  school  of  religious  thought  assumes  that  a  myth 
is  necessary  to  religious  belief  in  pre-historic  periods,  and 
even  since  in  some  nations.  A  myth  is  defined  as  an 
endeavor  to  realize  the  unknown  as  a  power  to  grant  or 
refuse  a  wish.  The  motives  impelling  to  this  attempt  are 
affirmed  to  be  "  an  innate  consciousness,"  "  a  force,"  and 
"  a  succession  of  changes,"  with  "  a  yearning  to  explain 
existing  phenomena."  Whence  this  "  innate  conscious- 
ness "  ?  Whence  this  indefinable  "  yearning  "  ?  If  we 
were  to  affirm  that  they  were  implanted  at  creation,  could 
the  statement  be  disproved  ?  To  say  the  least,  chris- 
tians have  as  good  a  right  to  ask  their  adversaries  to 
undertake  its  refutation  as  they  have  to  expect  us  to  re- 
fute their  unfounded  assertions.  Certainly  the  Scriptural 
doctrine  is  as  satisfactory  and  more  logical  than  the  the- 
ory which  assumes  that  religion  is  a  result  of  evolution, 
a  development  without  even  an  original  germ  of  religious 
feeling. 

Whilst  it  is  patent  to  all  that  evolutionists  make  no 
effort  to  show  us  how  the  higher  forms  of  human  thought 
have  been  developed  from  animal  instincts,  it  is  scarcely 
less  evident  that  in  the  endeavor  to  evolve  the  germs  of 
intellect,  of  moral  sense,  and  of  religious  emotion,  they 
proclaim  themselves  alchemists  in  psychology,  successors 


112  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

in  a  higher  sphere  of  the  chemical  transmutationists  of 
the  dark  ages.  Mingling  animal  ingredients,  and  repeat- 
ing an  incantation  composed  of  fanciful  analogies  and 
adroit  assumptions,  they  confidently  affirm  that  they  are 
able  to  distil  human  essence,  whence  may  be  evolved  all 
the  races  of  men  and  even  the  marvelous  works  of  human 
genius,  no  Creator  being  needed  unless  possibly  the 
hypothesis  of  his  existence  may  be  necessary  to  account 
for  the  origin  of  one  or  two  primordial  germs.  Perhaps 
they  may  find  themselves  pursuing  a  mere  illusion.  It  is 
possible,  however,  that  like  their  renowned  predecessors 
they  may  stimulate  investigation,  which,  notwithstanding 
the  incidental  mischief  done,  may  result  in  establishing 
truth  on  an  immovable  basis. 

With  firm  faith  in  the  final  adoption,  even  by  scientific 
men,  of  the  Scriptural  account  of  man's  origin,  we  do 
well  to  note  the  fact  that  evolutionists  have  chosen  a 
mode  of  arguing  that  is  unscientific.  They  have  virtually 
abandoned  the  inductive  method. 

True,  they  still  profess  to  pursue  it  while  substituting 
hypotheses  and  suggestions  and  analogies  and  a  priori 
reasoning.  They  seem  to  have  forgotten  the  scientific 
requirement  that  in  interpreting  nature  only  causes  which 
have  a  real  existence  and  are  adequate  to  the  production 
of  the  effect  are  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  Causes 
are  assumed  whose  existence  cannot  be  satisfactorily 
proved,  much  less  can  they  be  shown  to  possess  potency 
adequate  to  the  production  of  the  effects  attributed  to 
them.  In  not  a  few  instances,  the  explanations  given 
proceed  upon  the  principle  that  the  effect  produces  the 
cause.  Mr.  Darwin  when  attempting  to  account  for  the 
origin  of  human  affection,  assumes  that  in  animals  the 
desire  of  caressing  springs  from  the  habit  of  caressing. 
He    also  traces  the  growth  of  speech  to  man's  mental 


MAN'S   RELIGIOUS   NATURE.  113 

power  and  the  growth  of  mental  power  to  the   use.  of 
language. 

Professor  Tyndal  boldly  defends  the  a  priori  method 
of  procedure,  claiming  free  scope  for  the  imagination 
and  unrestricted  liberty  to  the  discursive  faculties.  In 
this  he  has  the  endorsement  of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer, 
whose  method  of  reasoning  is  emphatically  a  priori. 
Whoever  will  take  the  pains  to  examine  his  writings 
will  find,  amid  much  that  is  admirable  and  not  a  little 
that  is  somewhat  misty,  clear  evidence  that  the  induc- 
tive method  has  been  abandoned.  Thus  it  happens 
that  though  evolutionists  have  not  succeeded  in  proving 
that  a  single  savage  has  descended  from  the  monkey 
family,  nor  indeed  that  such  evolution  is  possible,  they 
nevertheless  expect  us  to  believe  their  theory.  If  we  ob- 
ject, they  assure  us  that  the  element  of  time  will  certainly 
work  these  transformations,  though  no  attempt  is  made  to 
show  that  the  lapse  of  time  will  affect  the  problem;  nay. 
it  is  not  even  proved  that  these  insensible  gradations  be- 
come perceptible  after  the  expiration  of  fifty  centuries.  A 
vivid  imagination  and  a  strong  subjective  faith  may  be  con- 
sidered as  dispensing  with  the  necessity  of  an  objective 
verification.  In  the  place  of  Tertullian's  maxim,  "Credo 
quia  impossibile  est,"  they  seem  disposed  to  substitute 
11  Credo  quia  comprehensibile  est."  If  under  the  glare  of 
their  cherished  theory  certain  propositions  are  to  them  con- 
ceivable, the  inference  is  drawn — especially  if  phenomena 
hitherto  inexplicable  are  seemingly  solved — that  they 
have  removed  the  veil  from  nature's  laboratory,  disclosing 
the  actual  processes  by  which  higher  forms  were  suc- 
cessively introduced  till  the  phantasmagorial  procession 
ended  in  man's  appeara-nce  upon  the  stage  as  an  unclothed 
savage.  Whilst  ignoring  all  parts  of  the  problem  except 
those  which  may  be  more  readily  connected  with  brute 


11 4  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

instincts,  they  expect  us  to  believe  that  science  enjoins 
the  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  that  man  in  all  his  facul- 
ties is  the  natural  offspring  of  some  branch  of  the  simial 
family. 

CONCLUSION. 

1.  Has  it  been  proved  that  man's  religious  nature  was 
not  an  original  endowment  ?     No. 

2.  Has  it  been  proved  that  because  some  savages  are 
without  religion,  therefore  this  was  man's  original  con- 
dition ?     No. 

3.  Has  it  been  proved  that  man,  if  he  once  possessed 
religion,  could  not  lose  it  ?     No. 

4.  Has  it  been  proved  that  a  vague  faith  in  mysterious 
beings  can  evolve  itself  into  theism,  provided,  a  few  thou- 
sand or  a  few  million  years  are  thrown  in  as  a  co-operat- 
ing agent  ?     No. 

5.  Has  it  been  proved  that  religion  is  a  product  of 
human  thought  ? — that  it  is  the  driftwood  thrown  upon 
the  shore  of  the  agitated  ocean  of  human  feeling  ? — that 
it  may  have  had  its  origin  in  an  ill-defined  "  wish,  hope, 
and  fear  "  ?     No. 

6.  Has  it  been  proved  that  savages  have  arisen,  un- 
aided, to  an  adequate  conception  of  their  relations  to 
Deity  ?  No.  "  Some  savages  have  no  religion."  Have 
any  of  them  acquired  a  system  of  religious  faith  by  their 
own  exertions  ?  The  theory  that  a  race  can  advance  by 
its  own  unassisted  efforts  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  relig- 
ious faith  is  unsupported  by  facts.  It  may  rise  by  in- 
struction; but  of  what  avail  is  instruction  if  there  is  no 
in-born  power  ?  Some  barbarians  have  religious  ideas. 
How  did  they  acquire  them  ?  The  simplest  answer  is 
that  they  were  carried  clown  with  them  as  they  sank  into 
moral  degeneracy. 


MAN'S    RELIGIOUS   NATURE.  115 

7.  Has  it  been  proved  that  man,  if  originally  an 
irreligious  savage,  could  have  evolved  religion  ?  No; 
far  from  proving  that  man  has  developed  religion,  it  has 
not  yet  been  proved  that  he  could  do  so. 

8.  Has  it  been  proved  that  the  earliest  races  were 
without  a  moral  and  religious  nature  ?  No:  it  has  not 
even  been  proved  that  they  were  without  spiritual  ideas 
and  religious  ceremonies. 

9.  Has  it  been  proved  that  man's  worship  is  the  same 
in  kind  as  the  feeling  of  a  dog  towards  his  master  ?     No. 

10.  Has  it  been  proved  that  the  accepted  theory  is  en- 
vironed with  more  difficulties  than  the  new  hypothesis  ? 
No.     "  The  old  is  better." 

It  is  for  our  readers  to  judge  to  what  extent  we  have 
aided  them  in  perceiving  that  the  time-honored  doctrine 
is  tenable,  logical  and  consistent  with  facts. 

As  a  rule  attacks  upon  Christianity,  whether  meta- 
physical or  scientific,  do  not  so  injure  it  as  to  obscure  the 
hope  of  ultimate  triumph.  Unfortunately,  these  assaults 
may  prevent  its  adoption  by  some,  and  may  weaken  the 
faith  of  others,  but  the  confidence  of  God's  people  is  in 
no  respect  shaken.  As  has  been  beautifully  said:  "  Chris- 
tianity, like  Rome,  has  had  both  the  Gaul  and  Hannibal 
at  her  gates;  but  as  the  Eternal  City,  in  the  latter  case, 
calmly  offered  for  sale,  and  sold  at  an  undepreciated 
price,  the  very  ground  on  which  the  Carthaginian  had 
fixed  his  camp,  with  equal  calmness  may  Christianity 
equal  her  magnanimity.  She  may  feel  sure  that,  as  in  so 
many  past  instances  of  premature  triumph  on  the  part  of 
her  enemies,  the  ground  they  occupy  will  one  day  be  hers 
— that  the  very  discoveries,  apparently  hostile,  of  science 
and  philosophy,  will  be  ultimately  found  elements  of  her 
strength." 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE   FATHER   OF  THE   ANIMAL   KINGDOM. 

At  this  point  in  our  discussion  we  are  confronted  with 
the  oft-repeated  assertion  that  all  forms  of  life  owe  their 
origin  to  one,  or  at  most  three  or  four  primordial  germs. 
Who  then  was  the  father  of  this  numerous,  variously 
endowed  family  ?  If  the  trilobite,  which  inhabited  the 
ocean  when  there  were  no  shores  to  interrupt  its  waves, 
was  elder  brother  to  the  latest  philosopher  who  has 
soared  into  the  regions  of  speculative  thought;  if  organ- 
isms possessing  the  minimum  vita;  were  the  parental 
forms  of  those  endowed  with  the  maximum  rationis;  if 
creatures  having  only  par v am  scintillam  aninti  were  the 
progenitors  of  modern  scientists,  the  latter  being  but  the 
natural  product  of  the  united  efforts  of  millions  of  pre- 
existing animals  which  succeeded  after  billions  of  abortive 
efforts  in  evolving  an  intellect  capable  of  recognizing  its 
indebtedness  to  a  long  line  of  self-sacrificing  ancestors- 
apes,  fish,  worms,  monera,  etc.,— then  the  father  of  us  all, 
however  respectable  he  may  have  been,  evidently  occu- 
pied an  humble  sphere  in  life.  Who  was  he,  who,  as  his 
family  came  drifting  down  the  stream  of  time,  left  col- 
onies which  consented  to  continue  existence  that  they 
might  point  backwards  to  the  beings  whence  they  were 
evolved  and  forwards  to  their  ambitious  relatives  who 
decided  to  go  on  with  the  process  of  evolution,  hoping 
that  persistency  in  a  course  which  had  already  developed 


THE    FATHER    OF    THE    ANIMAL    KINGDOM.         117 

marvelous  organisms  might  evolve  some  Haeckel  whc 
would  undertake  to  write  a  history  of  the  family,  thereby 
inspiring  the  hope  that  in  a  second  period  of  four  hun- 
dred millions  of  years  man  might  develop  into  some  being 
as  much  superior  to  homo  sapiens  as  homo  sapiens  is 
superior  to  a  tadpole  ? 

As  Darwin  and  Haeckel  are  well  versed  in  the  mystic 
lore  of  the  wonderful  genealogical  charts  left  by  monkeySj 
marsupials,  lizards,  and  amoebae,  we  shall  let  them  tell 
us  who  was  the  father  of  earth's  family  of  beings.  We 
might  also  ask  them  to  tell  us  who  was  the  father  of  the 
father  of  animals,  since  we  might  become  too  much 
bewildered  were  we  to  essay  the  task  of  tracing  the 
shadowy  line  of  descent  into  the  numberless  species  of  the 
vegetable  world  from  some  organism  of  which  the  first 
animal  ought  to  have  been  developed  if  the  theory  is  true, 
for  vegetable  life  preceded  animal  life,  and,  as  is  well 
known,  the  one  kingdom  glides  into  the  other  by  such 
insensible  gradations  that  even  those  who  know  all  things 
worth  knowing  can  scarcely  tell  where  one  ends  and  the 
other  begins.  Moreover,  to  render  the  investigation 
complete,  we  ought  to  inquire  what  particular  plant  was 
the  parent  of  all  the  rest.  Having  obtained  a  satisfactory 
answer  to  this  perplexing  question  we  might  be  reason- 
ably expected  to  inquire  whence  came  the  germ  of  life. 
Did  it  wiggle  itself  out  of  a  grain  of  sand  ?  Alas,  we  had 
supposed  that  matter  was  helpless.  "  The  despicable 
dupes  of  theology  "  have  been  illogical  enough  to  imagine 
that  if  we  may  not  regard  inertia  as  a  property  of  matter 
because  it  is  a  merely  negative  terms,  still  we  are  not  at 
liberty  to  ascribe  to  matter  the  power  of  originating  life. 
Of  the  powerlessness  of  matter  to  change  its  condition 
there  is  abundant  evidence  even  though  we  may  have  no 
more  right  to  say  that  inertia  is  an  essential  property  of 


118  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

matter  than  we  have  to  assert  that  good-for-nothingncss 
is  the  mark  by  which  we  can  distinguish  the  midge  from 
every  other  entity  in  the  universe.  There  is  no  proof 
that  matter  can  originate  life.  You  have  as  much  rea- 
son for  affirming  that  absolute  helplessness  created  the 
universe  as  for  affirming  that  inert  matter  originated  life. 
We  are  told  by  Haeckel  that  life  first  appeared  in  "  a 
homogeneous  atom  of  plasson";  by  Huxley,  that  "  proto- 
plasm" is  the  physical  basis  of  life.  Will  they  ascertain 
whence  life  came,  what  it  is,  and  why  it  selected  so  hum- 
ble a  tabernacle  in  which  to  make  its  first  appearance  on 
earth  ?  Neither  protoplasm  nor  a  homogeneous  atom  of 
plasson  is  declared  to  be  life,  but  simply  the  body  it 
inhabits;  even  if  it  could  be  proved  to  be  life  and  the 
parent  of  all  animal  and  vegetable  existences,  the  problem 
of  man's  origin  would  not  be  solved,  but  merely  rendered 
more  intricate.  Science  would  then  ask,  What  was  the 
origin  of  protoplasm  ? — what  was  the  origin  of  this  won- 
derful homogeneous  atom  ?  Was  matter,  which  is  so 
helpless  that  it  cannot  move  itself  when  at  rest,  nor  stop 
itself  when  in  motion  ?  Can  that  which  is  in  itself 
inactive  originate  a  series  of  acts  extending  through 
ages  ?  When  they  have  forced  assent  to  this,  other 
questions  will  press  for  solution.  Which  material  ele- 
ment gave  birth  to  life  ?  Did  it  annihilate  itself  in  the 
effort  ?  If  not,  why  has  it  ceased  business  ?  Or,  if  all 
matter  is  resolvable  into  one  element,  then  what  is  that 
clement  ?  Why  is  it  no  longer  turning  out  products  equal 
to  its  original  gift  to  the  world  ?  How  did  that  element 
come  into  existence  ?  What  are  its  properties  ?  Had  it 
more  qualities  than  those  which  reason  decides  to  be 
essential  to  the  existence  of  a*n  atom  ?  Where  is  the 
proof  that  it  had  any  quality  not  now  possessed  by  mat- 
ter ?     If  there  is  no  proof,  why  assume  that  it  gave  birth 


THE    FATHER    OF    THE    ANIMAL    KINGDOM.         119 

to  life?  But  it  is  perhaps  said,  it  must  have  been  subject 
to  certain  forces.  Well,  were  those  forces  inherent  in  it 
or  were  they  delegated  to  it  ?  In  either  case,  can  it  be 
proved  that  they  were  capable  of  producing  life  ?  And  if 
this  can  be  established,  can  it  be  shown  that  matter  has 
lost  some  force  ?  But  force  is  indestructible.  And  yet, 
if  matter  once  possessed  this  force,  it  must  have  lost  it, 
else  life  would  be  still  originating  in  earth's  material 
laboratories,  occasionally  at  least. 

Nor  would  the  difficulty  be  solved  even  if  it  should  be 
demonstrated  that  life,  in  infant  form,  had  its  origin  in  mat- 
ter. Logic,  if  indisposed  to  question  whether  such  might 
not  be  the  case  would  persist  in  asking,  Whence  came 
matter  ?  How  came  it  possessed  of  this  life-giving 
power  ?  If  it  is  capable,  operating  with  unity  of  design 
through  centuries,  of  producing  the  varied  forms  of  liv- 
ing things,  it  could  not  have  originated  in  chance,  for 
every  step  in  its  subsequent  evolution  is  characterized 
by  intelligence,  suitable  means  being  employed  for  the 
accomplishment  of  ends  predetermined.  It  could  not 
have  been  self-created,  for  the  self-creation  of  matter 
from  nothingness  is  inconceivable — more  so  than  the 
origination  of  the  universe  ex  nihilo  by  the  fiat  of 
Divine  Intelligence,  which  science  is  disposed  to  pro- 
nounce preposterous.  It  could  not  have  been  eternal, 
for  modern  reasoning  has  proved  this  impossible.  Besides, 
the  human  intellect  finds  it  more  difficult  to  believe  in 
the  eternity  of  matter  than  in  an  eternal  God.  Moreover, 
if  the  various  species  of  animals  have  been  evolved  from 
a  few  parental  forms,  and  these  parental  forms  were 
evolved  from  vegetable  organisms,  and  all  species  in  the 
vegetable  kingdom  were  evolved  from  a  few  primordial 
germs,  and  these  from  inorganic  matter,  then  matter,  it 
would  seem,    ought    to    have    been    evolved    from    some 


120  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

pre-existing  substance  as  inferior  to  what  we  designate 
matter  as  this  is  inferior  to  mind. 

Evolution  thus  carries  us  backwards  through  the 
cycles  of  buried  millenniums  without  furnishing  a  satis- 
factory solution  of  man's  origin.  He  has  been  evolved — 
that  is  all  it  can  say.  It  cannot  tell  us  the  origin  of  this 
potent  principle  of  evolution  by  which  he  was  evolved. 
This  must  have  been  evolved  from  some  less  complex 
principle  previously  existent;  this,  in  turn,  from  some 
antecedent,  still  simpler  principle — the  succession  emerg- 
ing from  the  depths  of  a  shoreless  infinity. 

Life  is  brief.  Therefore  it  is  prudent  to  content  one's 
self  with  endeavoring  to  trace  man's  descent  from  the 
period  when,  as  evolutionists  say,  his  ancestors  were  an- 
imals or  at  least  primordial  germs  of  animal  life. 

Having  proved  in  the  preceding  chapters,  as  is  be- 
lieved, that  the  christian,  if  disposed  to  accept  the  prin- 
ciple of  evolution,  or  if  he  shall  hereafter  feel  constrained 
so  to  do,  is  nevertheless  under  no  necessity  of  regarding 
man  as  an  evolution  from  the  ape-family,  we  come  to  a 
consideration  of  the  following  questions:  Is  the  animal 
kingdom  in  its  various  species,  an  evolution  from  a  few 
primordial  germs  ? — Have  all  species  in  the  lower  orders 
been  evolved  from  the  moneron  ? — Was  the  parental 
form,  whether  cell,  germ,  moneron,  or  atom  of  matter 
instinct  with  life,  a  product  of  spontaneous  generation  ? 
In  the  three  succeeding  chapters,  in  which  the  above 
questions  are  considered,  attention  is  invited  to  the  sec- 
ond stage  of  our  argument  in  favor  of  the  teachings  of 
Scripture  in  reference  to  origins.  If  it  has  been  made 
apparent  that  the  hypothesis  of  a  God  is  necessary  to 
account  for  man's  origin;  and  if,  as  will  scarcely  be  de- 
nied, it  is  improbable  that  the  tardy  process  of  evolution 
is  the  mode  which  Divine  Intelligence  chooses  to  adopt 


THE    FATHER    OF    THE    ANIMAL    KINGDOM.         121 

in  calling  man  into  being,  is  it  not  easier  to  believe  that 
clearly  marked  species  of  animals  were  immediate  crea- 
tions than  to  believe  that  they  evolved  themselves  from 
a  few  germs,  or  from  a  moneron,  or  slipped  into  being 
through  the  successive  changes  assumed  by  some  atom 
of  matter  that  chanced  to  leap  over  the  barrier  which 
separates  the  living  from  the  non-living  ?  Primordial 
germs,  the  moneron,  abiogenesis — these  claim  attention. 
If  it  shall  be  proved  that  all  species  of  animals  evolved 
from  a  few  parental  forms,  it  will  still  be  competent  for 
the  theist  to  stand  bowed  in  reverence  at  this  threshold 
of  life  and  ask  with  an  emphasis  that  might  ring  through 
immensity,  Whence  came  these  potent  germs?  How 
came  they  possessed  of  such  intelligence  ? 

Consequently,  without  attempting  a  refutation  of  any 
form  of  evolution  consistent  with  theism  and  preferring 
to  assign  a  broad  field  for  the  operations  of  this  champion, 
we  enter  an  impregnable  fortress  when  we  ask  atheistic 
evolutionists  to  explain  the  origin  of  these  germs,  to  say 
how  they  became  possessed  of  such  potentialities,  to 
show  how  they  could  have  managed  to  commence 
business,  to  account  for  the  intelligence  displayed  in 
the  results.  With  evolution  proper,  when  restricted 
to  its  own  province,  theology  has  no  controversy. 
With  atheistic  forms  of  the  theory  the  christian  is  in 
deadly  hostility.  They  tend  to  rob  him  of  his  sacred 
inheritance. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

DARWIN'S   PRIMORDIAL   GERMS. 

Darwin  says: — 

"  There  is  grandeur  in  this  view  of  life,  with  its  several  powers,  having  been 
originally  breathed  by  the  Creator  into  a  few  forms  or  into  one." — Origin  of 
Species,  p.  437. 

Again  he  says: — 

"  I  believe  that  animals  are  descended  from  at  most  only  four  or  five  pro- 
genitors, and  plants  from  an  equal  or  less  number." — Idem,  p.  432. 

"  I  see  no  good  reason  why  the  views  given  in  this  volume  should  shock  the 
religious  feelings  of  any  one." — Idem,  p.  428. 

I.  Why  use  the  expressions,  "a  few  forms,"  "  four  or 
five"?  Was  the  line  of  descent  traced  backwards  with 
certainty  to  "five";  with  probability  to  "four";  with  some 
evidence  to  "one "?  Why  was  no  account  left  of  the  diffi- 
culty encountered  in  the  effort  to  insure  accuracy  ?  The 
author's  statements  are  usually  definite.  Positiveness  oc- 
curs even  where  we  might  expect  conjecture.  The  caution 
manifested  in  the  above  passages  contrasts  strongly  with 
the  boldness  exemplified  in  the  following  assertions: — 

"The  difference  in  mind  between  man  and  the  higher  animals,  great  as  it 
is,  is  certainly  one  of  degree  and  not  of  kind." 

"  It  is  quite  incredible  that  man  should  through  mere  accident  resemble,  in 
no  less  than  seven  of  his  muscles,  certain  apes,  if  there  had  been  no  genetic  con- 
nection between  them." 

"Through  his  [man's]  powers  of  intellect,  articulate  language  has  been 
evolved." 

"To  g.vin  this  great  advantage  [standing  firmly],  the  feet  have  been  ren- 
dered flat,  and  the  great  toe  peculiarly  modified,  though  this  has  entailed  the 
loss  of  the  power  of  prehension." 


DARWIN'S    PRIMORDIAL    GERMS.  123 

"I  have  at  least  done  good  service  in  overthrowing  the  dogma  of  separate 
creations." 

"  If  they  [the  intellect  and  moral  faculties]  were  formerly  of  high  import- 
ance to  primeval  man  and  to  his  ape-like  progenitors,  they  would  have  been 
perfected  or  advanced  through  natural  selection." 

"  The  five  great  vertebrate  classes,  namely,  mammals,  birds,  reptiles,  am- 
phibians, and  fishes,  are  all  descended  from  some  one  prototype." 

"  At  a  much  earlier  period  the  uterus  was  double;  the  excreta  were  voided 
through  a  cloaca;  and  the  eye  was  protected  by  a  third  eyelid  or  nictitating  mem- 
brane. At  a  still  earlier  period  the  progenitors  of  man  must  have  been  aquatic  in 
their  habits,  for  morphology  plainly  tells  us  that  our  lungs  consist  of  a  modified 
swim-bladder,  which  once  served  as  a  float.  The  clefts  on  the  neck  in  the  embryo 
of  man  show  where  the  branchiae  once  existed.  At  about  this  period  the  true  kid- 
neys were  replaced  by  the  corpora  wolffina.  The  heart  existed  as  a  simple  pulsat- 
ing vessel:  and  the  chorda  dorsalis  took  the  place  of  a  vertebral  column.  These 
early  predecessors  of  man  thus  seen  in  the  dim  recesses  of  time,  must  have  been  as 
lowly  organized  as  the  lancelet  or  amphioxus,  or  even  still  more  lowly  organized." 

"  Man  is  developed  from  an  ovule  about  one  hundred  and  twenty-fifth  of  an 
inch  in  diameter,  which  differs  in  no  respect  from  the  ovules  of  other  animals." 
[And  yet  the  little  human  egg  developes  into  an  intelligent  being,  and  the  egg 
of  the  mammoth  turtle  into  a  shell  with  meat  in  it,  though  in  the  embryonic 
state  "they  differ  in  no  respect."] 

"  Every  animal  and  vegetable  species  has  arisen  only  once  in  the  course  of 
time  and  only  in  one  place  on  the  earth — its  so-called  center  of  creation." 

•'  Man  is  descended  from  a  hairy  quadruped  furnished  with  a  tail  and  pointed 
ears,  probably  arboreal  in  its  habits  and  an  inhabitant  of  the  Old  World." 
— Darwin's  Descent  of  Man,  vol.  i.  pp.  ioi,  124,  132,  136,  147,  153,  195, 
198;  vol.  ii.  pp.  372,  etc. 

With  such  accuracy  along  the  entire  line  of  descent, 
indefiniteness  in  reference  to  the  origin  of  these  trans- 
mutations seems  more  inexplicable. 

2.  If  it  was  possible  to  trace  man's  history  back  so  far, 
it  is  singular  that  it  could  be  traced  no  further.  Logic 
would  seem  to  demand  the  employment  of  every  available 
agency  of  arriving  at  one  primordial  germ  as  the  starting 
point.  This  would  have  been  simpler  and  more  satisfac- 
tory. If  divergent  species  can  be  proved  to  have  origi- 
nated in  a  few  parental  forms,  it  is  remarkable  that 
the  line  can  be  traced  no  further;  and  yet  we  are  not  in- 


124  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

formed  what  insurmountable  barrier  exists.  Evidently  it 
must  be  a  serious  obstacle,  more  serious  than  the  fixity 
of  species,  for  this  has  been  overthrown,  it  is  claimed.  If 
several  starting-points  were  necessary  for  the  animal 
kingdom,  then  we  would  be  naturally  inclined  to  im- 
agine that  the  division  lines  in  existing  species  must  be 
such  as  to  have  forced  this  indefiniteness.  A  few,  at 
least  "four  or  five,"  lines  must  have  been  sufficiently 
marked  to  have  been  perceptible  and  impossible  to  erase; 
and  yet  it  is  said  that  species  is  merely  a  variety  slightly 
more  permanent  than  ordinary  varieties.  Why  then  is 
there  any  difficulty  in  setting  the  complicated  machinery 
of  evolution  to  work  in  developing  all  living  organisms 
from  one  single- germ  ?  Why  imagine  that  there  might 
have  been  a  few  germs,  "  four  or  five"  ?  Was  it  neces- 
sary in  order  that  the  struggle  for  existence  might  result 
in  the  destruction  of  those  individuals  which  did  not  pos- 
sess by  inheritance  a  slightly  improved  structure  ?  Was 
advance  impossible  unless  some  annihilated  others  in  the 
race  of  life  ?  Hardly;  for  the  struggle  could  not  have 
been  very  intense  when  only  a  few  creatures  inhabited  an 
earth  already  having  oceans,  continents  and  an  abun- 
dance of  food  for  the  sustenance  of  animal  life.  Was  it 
that  the  theory  of  natural  selection  could  have  scope 
for  its  operations  ?  No;  for  natural  selection  can  only 
operate  upon  favorable  variations  in  individuals  of  the 
same  species;  and  manifestly  the  primordial  germs  must 
have  been  of  different  species  or  of  course  one  would  have 
answered  the  purpose.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  nat- 
ural selection  could  have  possessed  no  special  advantages 
from  having  "  four  or  five"  primordial  germs  as  the  start- 
ing-point of  the  animal  kingdom.  The  offspring  of  each 
separate  species,  or  of  each  individual  germ,  could  have 
been  in  no  way  affected,  under  natural  selection,  by  the 


DARWIN'S    PRIMORDIAL    GERMS.  125 

offspring  of  the  other  germs.  The  improvement  in  each 
of  the  lines  was  conditioned,  according  to  the  theory, 
upon  slight  favorable  inherited  variations.      We  quote:  — 

"  Natural   selection   acts   only    by   taking    advantage    of  slight  successive 

variations." 

"Natural  selection  acts  solely  by  accumulating  slight  favorable  variations." 
''Natural  selection  acts  exclusively  by  the  preservation  and  accumulation  of 

variations  which  are  beneficial." 

"  Every  variation  which  is  not  inherited  is  unimportant  for  us." 

"  Natural  selection  acts  only  by  the  preservation  and  accumulation  of  small 

inherited  modifications,  each  profitable  to  the  preserved  species." 

"  Unless  favorable  variations  be  inherited  by  some  at  least  of  the  offspring, 

nothing  can  be  effected  by   natural    selection." — Origin    of  Species,  pp.  156, 

413,  63,  80,  75,  9,  etc. 

Natural  selection  is  not  an  agency,  according  to  these 
quotations,  which  produces  variations,  but  merely  an 
agency  which  aggregates  and  preserves  the  variations 
produced  by  some  unknown  cause,  provided  the  varia- 
tions are  beneficial  to  the  being  preserved.  So  then  it 
does  not  require  more  than  one  germ  with  which  to  be- 
gin operations.  Moreover,  the  variations  which  are  pro- 
duced, as  is  elsewhere  conceded,  by  some  unknown  cause, 
must  be  slight,  otherwise  "  they  would  almost  certainly 
soon  be  obliterated  by  crossing."  Accordingly,  if  a  few 
germs  are  to  prove  more  helpful  to  natural  selection  than 
one  germ,  their  offspring  must  resemble  each  other  very 
closely;  but  if  close  resemblance  was  a  necessity,  then, 
one  germ  would  have  answered  the  purpose  far  better. 
This,  under  the  operation  of  the  same  unknown  cause  or 
causes,  could  have  produced  slight  variations.  That  each 
of  the  several  germs  has  been  incessantly  producing 
small  favorable  modifications,  the  exigencies  of  the  theory 
demand.  Then  one  may  have  done  so.  Evidently,  there- 
fore, the  assumption  that  animal  life  may  have  originated 
in  a  few  primordial  germs  is  not  only  less  logical,  but  is 
also  less  manageable,  under  the  law  of  natural  selection. 


12G  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

than  the  assumption  that  all  animals  had  their  origin  in 
one  germ. 

Will  "a  few  forms"  aid  "sexual  selection"  in  pro- 
ducing variations  ?  No;  for  evolutionists  concur  in  the 
opinion  that  "  the  primitive  vertebrates  possessed  both 
ovaries  and  testes."  Consequently,  at  an  earlier  period 
each  individual  was  capable  of  reproducing  itself  inde- 
pendently, the  separation  of  the  sexual  organs  having 
not  yet  taken  place.  Plainly,  therefore,  the  ancient  an- 
cestors of  earth's  family  of  beings  could  not  have  come 
under  the  influence  of  this  law.  Moreover,  as  by  hy- 
pothesis, the  first  living  beings  were  the  lowest  in  the 
scale,  there  manifestly  could  have  been  no  sexual  selec- 
tion, for  there  were  no  eyes  to  discern  beauty,  no  ears  to 
hear  love-calls,  no  nose  to  quaff  odors,  and  no  sense  of 
touch  to  excite  the  determination  to  exercise  choice. 
Besides,  as  is  claimed  by  evolutionists,  the  first  appear- 
ance of  animal  life  was  either  in  the  form  of  a  simple 
cell,  "  nucleus  and  protoplasm,"  or  in  the  form  of  a 
cytod,  "  formless  matter  not  yet  differentiated."  In 
either  case  could  sexual  selection  have  aided  in  develop- 
ing variations  ! 

It  is  difficult,  therefore,  to  assign  any  satisfactory  rea- 
son, deducible  from  either  natural  selection  or  from 
sexual  selection,  for  assuming  the  existence  of  more 
than  one  germ. 

Nor  would  a  "  few  germs  "  furnish  man's  progenitors 
with  the  means  of  producing  variations,  for  the  causes 
of  modifications  are  pronounced  inexplicable.  This  is 
conceded: — 

"  <  h\v  ignorance  of  the  laws  of  variation  is  profound.  Not  in  one  case  out 
of  a  hundred  can  we  pretend  to  assign  any  reason  why  this  or  that  form  has 
varied."  .  .  .  " We  are  profoundly  ignorant  of  the  cause  of  each  sudden 
and  apparently  spontaneous  variation."  .  .  .  "We  know  not  what  produces 
the  numberless  slight  differences  between  the  individuals  of  each  species."  .  .   . 


DARWIN'S    PRIMORDIAL    GERMS.  127 

"  What  first  caused  these  slight  differences  cannot  be  explained  any  more  than 
why  one  man  has  a  long  nose  and  another  a  short  one." — Origin  of  Species, 
p.  6;  Plants  and  Animals  under  Domestication,  pp.  421,  471,  etc. 

3.  Why  is  not  the  stream  of  animal  descent  traced 
backwards  into  and  through  the  vegetable  kingdom  ? 
This  would  have  furnished  a  theme  for  fanciful  analogies 
and  etherial  speculations,  one  which  some  evolutionist 
would  do  well  to  cultivate;  and  it  would,  moreover,  have 
been  a  help  to  those  who,  having  been  repeatedly  told 
that  "  where  faith  begins  science  ends,"  desire  further 
evidence  that  inasmuch  as  evolution  does  not  begin  in 
an  assumption,  they  are  not  exchanging  faith  in  an  intel- 
ligent First  Cause  for  faith  in  a  miracle-working  pri- 
mordial germ.  If  the  former  is  to  be  displaced  by  the 
latter,  and  not  by  scientific  certainty,  they  are  inclined  to 
say  "  the  old  is  better." 

Man's  parentage  ought  to  be  traceable  backwards 
through  the  vegetable  kingdom,  for  plants  are  proto- 
plasm, indistinguishable,  it  is  said,  from  human  proto- 
plasm; as  really  protoplasm  as  the  animals  that  feed  upon 
them,  and  without  which  every  animal  organism  would 
speedily  perish.  As  evolutionists  concur  in  the  opinion 
that  vegetable  life  existed  on  the  earth  prior  to  animal 
life;  and  as  plants  alone,  to  appearances  at  least,  are 
capable  of  originating  protoplasm  from  the  material  ele- 
ments in  nature;  and  as  they  have  not  only  a  frame-work, 
about  which  the  tabernacle  of  life  is  constructed,  but 
also  have  a  principle  of  life  which  is  capable  of  organizing 
matter  into  new  forms,  each  new  form  possessing  the 
power  of  reproduction  by  developing  a  fertilized  egg, 
capable  also  of  originating  variations  which  are  accu- 
mulated and  preserved  by  some  agency;  and  as  they 
assimilate  their  own  appropriate  food,  extracting  from 
earth,  air,  and  water  the  materials  which  can  be  incor- 


128  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

porated  into  their  structure;  and  as  they  are  sensitive 
to  the  external  influences  of  heat  and  cold,  in  some 
instances  even  to  the  sense  of  touch;  and  as,  when 
living,  they  can  with  difficulty  be  distinguished,  in  some 
specimens,  from  lower  forms  of  animal  life;  and  as,  when 
dying,  they  surrender  the  material,  from  which  they  con- 
structed themselves,  back  to  earth, — we  are  correct  in 
thinking  that  evolutionists  should  have  traced  man's 
parentage  through  the  vegetable  kingdom,  telling  us 
which  plant  was  the  father  of  the  numerous  family  of 
animate  existences. 

Having  solved  this  intricate  problem,  evolution  might 
perhaps  have  found  itself  fitted  for  the  task  of  following 
the  shadowy  line  of  man's  descent  into  and  through  the 
mineral  kingdom,  informing  us  why  plants  and  not  animals 
are  capable  of  feeding  upon  mineral  substances,  why  the 
vegetable  kingdom  is  intermediate  between  the  mineral 
and  the  animal,  closing  the  protracted  discussion  with 
the  announcement,  "I  have  discovered  the  element  from 
which  all  nature,  in  its  myriad  forms  of  existence,  has 
been  evolved."  But  no,  the  wings  of  speculation,  ex- 
hausted by  over-exertion  and  bedrabbled  with  the  waters 
of  earth-born  philosophy,  fall  powerless.  By  a  process  of 
induction,  Lockyer's  a  priori  speculations  in  reference  to 
the  evolution  of  matter  from  one  element  might  have 
been  eclipsed.  Impetus  might  have  been  given  to  mod- 
ern investigation.  Questions  demanding  a  solution  might 
have  been  answered. 

If  the  course  here  recommended  had  been  adopted,  pre- 
paration might  have  been  made  for  a  still  loftier  flight. 
It  would  have  been  possible  to  speculate  in  refer- 
ence to  the  origin  of  this  primeval  material  germ,  con- 
taining such  potentialities.  It  might  have  been  conjec- 
tured that  it  slowly  evolved  itself  from  nothingness,  which 


DARWIN'S    PRIMORDIAL    GERMS.  129 

must  have  rolled  for  ages  over  the  fields  of  space  seeking 
to  annihilate  itself  in  an  atom  of  dust  and  destined  to 
attain  to  consciousness  when  imprisoned  in  a  human 
being. 

It  is  impossible  to  ascertain  from  which  of  the  "few 
forms  "  man  descended.  Did  each  of  the  germs  produce  a 
human  being,  thereby  furnishing  a  basis  for  the  opinion 
of  those  ethnologists  who  divide  the  family  of  man  into 
several  species  ?     No;  for  it  is  affirmed: — 

"Those  evolutionists  who  admit  the  principle  of  evolution  will  feel  no  doubt 
that  all  the  races  of  men  are  descended  from  a  single  primitive  stock. — Descent 
of  Man,  p.  220. 

Consequently,  it  is  argued  that  the  races  of  men  con- 
stitute one  species,  though  it  is  claimed  that  for  the  pur- 
pose of  expressing  existing  differences,  they  might  be 
designated  distinct  species. 

If  man's  line  of  descent  is  to  be  traced  back  to  one  of 
these  germs,  then  one  germ  would  have  answered  all  the 
conditions  of  the  problem.  As  it  is,  we  are  unable  to 
determine  in  which  of  the  several  lines  to  search  for  our 
earliest  progenitors. 

These  primitive  germs  must  have  been  richly  endowed. 
They  must  have  possessed,  (a)  the  principle  of  evolution, 
which  we  presume  was  itself  evolved  during  antecedent  mil- 
lenniums; (d)  every  organism  that  has  since  been  evolved, 
for  those  who  believe  that  Omnipotence  cannot  produce 
something  from  nothing,  will  not  imagine  that  a  simple 
germ  can  evolve  what  it  does  not  contain — evolution 
implies  involution — evolving  presupposes  a  process  of 
involving;  {c)  intelligence,  for  man,  a  lineal  descendant, 
possesses  it;  (d)  mind,  since  their  offspring  is  in  posses- 
sion of  it,  call  it  what  you  may,  "  refined  matter,"  "spirit," 
or  "  a  substantial  entity"  having  properties  which  no 
material  substance  has;    (e)  conscience  and  religion,  for 


130  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

these,  even  if  they  were  evolved  from  "the  social 
instincts  of  the  lower  animals"  and  from  "a  wish,  a 
hope,  and  a  fear,"  must  have  been  latent  in  these  parental 
forms,  since  the  principle,  "  from  nothing,  nothing-  can  be 
produced,"  is  eternal  in  its  nature  and  universal  in  its  appli- 
cation. These  little  germs,  though  like  every  other  germ, 
ninety  per  cent  water,  must  have  been  "  microcosms," 
little  worlds  of  being.  Is  it  easier  to  believe  that  all 
animal  organisms  evolved  from  these  than  to  believe  that 
distinct  species  are  immediate  creations  ? 

These  minute  germs  are  declared  to  have  been  simple, 
and  they  must  have  been  alike,  for  the  human  embryo,  it 
is  affirmed,  differs  in  no  respect,  in  its  earlier  stages,  from 
the  embryos  of  other  animals;  for  example,  from  that  of 
the  dog,  the  horse,  the  whale.  Though  all  simple,  and 
in  no  respect  different  from  each  other,  being  no  doubt 
indistinguishable  under  the  most  powerful  microscope,  as 
all  animal  embryos  in  their  first  stages  are  declared  to 
be,  they  must  nevertheless  have  developed  along  diver- 
gent lines.  What  caused  this  divergency  in  the  course 
of  their  development  ?  What  causes  the  canine  egg  to 
develop  into  a  dog,  and  the  human  egg  to  develop  into 
a  man  ?  If,  as  is  asserted,  they  differ  in  no  respect  so  far 
as  their  material  structure  is  concerned,  then  manifestly 
there  must  be  associated  with  them  a  substantial  entity, 
a  something  which  I  may  denominate  "  life,"  which 
causes  them  to  differ  so  widely  when  full  grown.  For 
the  divergent  development  there  must  be  a  cause.  If,  as 
must  have  been  the  case,  these  several  primitive  germs 
developed  along  different  lines,  and  if,  as  also  must  have 
been  the  case,  they  "differed  in  no  respect,"  then  they 
must  have  possessed  an  independent  principle  of  life,  one 
which  matter  could  not  furnish.  They  must  have  been 
a  direct  creation,  and   if  creation  occurred  once,  as  is 


DARWIN'S    PRIMORDIAL    GERMS.  131 

evident  it  did,  is  there  anything  irrational  in  supposing 
it  may  have  occurred  more  than  once  ?  Darwin's  primitive 
germ  is  supplied  by  a  direct  divine  interposition:  Haeckel's 
11  primeval  parent  of  all  organisms  "  is  the  child  of  spon- 
taneous generation.  In  either  case,  is  it  conceivable 
that  these  simple  germs,  ninety  per  cent  water,  and  dif- 
fering in  no  respect  from  ordinary  germs,  for  "  all  germs 
are  precisely  alike  in  material  constitution,"  could  have 
possessed  concealed  powers  adequate  to  the  task  of 
developing  into  species  as  widely  different  as  man  and 
the  ascidian  ? 

If  the  reader  is  disposed  to  regard  this  as  incon- 
ceivable he  is  prepared  to  ask,  Is  it  less  inconceivable 
that  these  primordial  germs,  which  could  not  contain 
all  the  potentialities  needed,  should  acquire  during  the 
course  of  their  protracted  development  fresh  materials, 
or  more  potent  organizing  agencies,  or  new  life-prin- 
ciples, adequate  to  the  task  of  originating  all  animal 
organisms,  and  acquire  them  too,  independent  of  Divine 
Volition  ? 

If  these  original  parental  forms  were  dissimilar,  and 
if  each  was  a  simple  cell,  uncompounded  and  undiffer- 
entiated, as  we  are  given  to  understand  must  have  been 
the  case,  then  the  difficulty  is  increased  in  exact  propor- 
tion to  the  number  of  primitive  germs;  for,  while  it  is 
impossible  to  determine  why  or  how  one  simple  un- 
compounded cell  should  or  could  evolve,  it  is  increas- 
ingly more  difficult  to  understand  how  each  of  several 
uncompounded  and  dissimilar  germs  should  happen  to 
differentiate.  How  can  a  single  substance  proceed  to 
become  complex  ?  But  the  difficulty  is  increased,  for 
an  organized  germ,  it  is  elsewhere  affirmed,  is  not  "  a 
homogeneous  substance  throughout."  How  then  can 
such  a  heterogenous  homogeneity  succeed  in   evolving 


132  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

itself  into  greater  complexity  ?     And  yet  each  of  these 
primitive  germs  must  perform  this  remarkable  feat. 

Nor  have  we  exhausted  the  catalogue  of  difficulties. 
If,  as  evolutionists  would  concede,  bisexuality  must  have 
been  an  attribute  of  each  primitive  animal  organism, 
then  how  have  males  and  females  become  distinct  ? 
Certainly  a  bisexual  animal  could  not  have  been  sud- 
denly transformed  by  natural  selection  into  two  ani- 
mals, a  male  and  a  female,  for  natural  selection  can 
never  take  "  a  great  and  sudden  leap."  Hence,  if  these 
"  individuals  capable  of  reproducing  themselves  inde- 
pendently" became  the  ancestors  of  unisexual  individ- 
uals, it  must  have  been  because  natural  selection  took 
"  advantage  of  slight  successive  variations."  But  it  is 
repeatedly  asserted  that  natural  selection  can  accumulate 
and  preserve  no  variations  unless  they  are  beneficial  to 
the  being  preserved.  Of  what  conceivable  benefit,  how- 
ever, could  it  be  to  a  bisexual  animal  to  preserve  slight 
modifications  tending  towards  the  production  of  a  uni- 
sexual animal  ?  Evidently  none  whatever.  Nay,  the 
case  is  stronger,  for  injurious  variations,  it  is  affirmed, 
are  certain  to  be  eliminated;  and  unquestionably  the 
smallest  variation  in  a  bisexual  animal  towards  the 
production  of  a  male  or  a  female,  or  towards  becoming 
either,  would  prove  disadvantageous,  destroying  the 
possibility  of  reproduction,  thereby  putting  an  end  to 
the  transmission  of  unisexual  peculiarities.  Manifestly, 
such  individuals,  even  if  they  continued  capable  of  self- 
reproduction,  would  not  be  the  fittest  to  survive,  being 
weakened  in  one  half  of  their  organism  without  any 
counterbalancing  advantages,  unless  it  might  be  the  faint 
hope  that  after  millions  of  self-sacrificing  generations 
-had  perished,  unisexual  animals  might  exist.  What 
advantage,  however,  would  this  be  either  to  the  immense 


DARWIN'S    PRIMORDIAL    GERMS.  133 

numbers  which  in  measure  unfitted  themselves  for  the 
struggle  of  life,  or  what  advantage  to  the  race  in  gen- 
eral ?     Absolutely  none. 

To  the  numberless  perplexing  questions  which  the 
theory  prompts  us  to  ask,  the  evolutionist  presents  this 
invariable  reply,  "  the  primitive  cells  were  like  those  in 
every  living  animal  organism."  Whence  then  came  the 
life  which  organizes  living  cells  into  a  symmetrical  body  ? 
It  is  folly  to  pretend  that  the  life  of  an  animal  is  nothing 
more  than  the  aggregate  life  of  the  individual  cells. 
Accordingly,  we  ought  to  have  been  informed  whether 
these  assumed  cells  possessed  the  life-principle,  or  were 
merely  a  material  substance  endowed  with  only  that  life 
which  belongs  to  a  simple  cell.  They  are  denominated 
simple  cells,  it  is  true;  nevertheless,  they  are  regarded 
as  the  parents  of  all  living  organisms.  If  they  were 
germs  capable  of  producing  animal-life — a  something 
distinct  from  cell-life — then  they  were  not  so  simple 
after  all.  Is  it  possible  that  these  cells  were  simplev 
when,  according  to  hypothesis,  they  evolved  all  living 
beings — evolved  them  without  the  aid  of  natural  selec- 
tion, survival  of  the  fittest,  or  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence ?  They  must  have  been  a  compendium  exceed- 
ingly marvelous. 

Though  munificently  endowed,  how  shall  they  begin 
to  operate  ? 

i.  Being  but  germs  they  must  first  develop  into  liv- 
ing beings.  This  result  must  have  been  effected  by  the 
power  conferred  upon  them  at  creation;  for  it  is  impos- 
sible to  believe  that  they  did  it  by  their  own  unaided 
exertions.  External  conditions,  it  may  be,  called  these 
inherent  powers  into  activity;  but  unless  they  existed, 
environment  could  effect  nothing.  Why  not  say  at  once, 
God  created  a  few  animals  ?     This  would  have  obviated 


184  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

many  serious  difficulties.  Moreover,  it  is  injudicious  to 
say  "germs,"  unless  one  is  prepared  to  show  how  these 
evolved  animal-life  independent  of  the  powers  originally 
conferred  upon  them.  Atheistic  forms  of  evolution  are 
specially  called  upon  to  show  how  uncreated  germs 
could  have  succeeded  in  originating  the  first  animal,  an 
animal  capable  of  developing  all  subsequent  animal  or- 
ganisms; it  ought  to  be  shown  how  even  created  germs, 
unless  endowed  with  adequate  inherent  power  or  under 
constant  direct  superintendence,  could  produce  such 
results.  Unless  this  is  possible,  an  animal  should  be 
assumed  as  the  starting-point.  This  lowest  organism 
should  then  be  proved  capable  of  evolving  all  higher 
forms.  We  ought  not  to  be  bewildered  by  the  endeavor 
to  ascertain  how  evolution  became  possessed  of  such 
powers,  and  how  it  transacted  such  an  amount  of  busi- 
ness on  capital  so  limited.  If  it  was  operative  during  the 
cell-period  and  began  the  development  of  an  animal  out 
of  nucleolus,  nucleus,  and  the  enveloping  protoplasm — 
out  of  an  egg  ninety  per  cent  water  and  the  remainder 
mostly  a  substance  indistinguishable  from  albumen — then 
as  neither  water  nor  albumen  is  life,  the  process  ought  to 
have  begun  further  back  than  the  material  substance 
which  life  organizes  into  a  body.  If  evolution  was  will- 
ing to  accept  the  hypothesis  of  a  Creator  who  originated 
these  germs,  it  would  relieve  itself  of  many  difficulties  by 
assuming  the  creation  of  at  least  one  animal  fully  en- 
dowed with  powers  to  evolve  all  other  animal  organisms, 
or  under  continued  Divine  Superintendence  during  its 
successive  evolutions.  How  it  could  otherwise  effect 
the  requisite  transmutations  is  an  unsolved  enigma. 

2.  Having,  for  some  inexplicable  reason,  determined 
to  develop  into  animals,  these  germs  must  next  decide 
which  way  to  evolve,  upwards  or  downwards.     If  they 


DARWIN'S    PRIMORDIAL    GERMS.  135 

had  made  a  mistake,  as  many  of  their  descendants  have 
done,  we  should  have  had  evolution  towards  greater 
simplicity.  Perhaps,  however,  it  may  be  said,  that  as 
they  were  simple  they  could  become  no  simpler.  If 
they  were  so  simple  that  they  could  become  no  simpler, 
then  they  were  so  simple  that  greater  complexity  was 
improbable,  for  though  "  evolution  is  from  the  homo- 
geneous to  the  heterogeneous,"  it  does  not  follow  that 
the  homogeneous  invariably  evolves  into  the  heteroge- 
neous. Moreover,  as  the  complex  frequently  degenerates 
into  the  more  simple,  it  would  be  hazardous  to  affirm  that 
a  germ  capable  of  evolving  all  living  creatures  could  by  no 
possibility  become  less  heterogeneous.  Evidently,  there- 
fore, degeneration  was  possible,  or  at  least  improvement 
was  not  certain.  No  sufficient  reason  has  been  assigned 
why  these  germs  should  evolve  upwards, — confessedly  in 
subsequent  ages  organisms  have  deteriorated.  Retro- 
gression is  nearly  as  frequent  as  progression.  It  is 
strange,  then,  that  in  the  initial  period,  evolution,  in 
every  instance,  was  towards  higher  forms. 

3.  Having  decided  to  evolve  upwards,  as  it  seems  these 
germs  all  did,  they  had  next  to  choose  the  particular  direc- 
tion they  were  to  pursue  and  the  agencies  they  were  to 
employ.  In  which  direction  shall  they  push  their  latent 
energies  ?  Is  their  intelligence,  which  is  inexplicable  in 
its  origin  and  marvelous  in  its  working,  equal  to  the 
task  of  answering  this  perplexing  question  ?  As,  by 
hypothesis,  they  were  the  lowest  of  animals,  if  animals 
at  all,  headless,  eyeless,  mouthless,  limbless — simple 
sacks  with  internal  organs  too  minute  to  be  perceptible 
by  the  most  powerful  microscopes,  though  adequate  to 
the  absorption  and  assimilation  of  material  atoms — evi- 
dently it  was  difficult  to  determine  which  organs  should 
be  evolved  first,  and  still  more  difficult  to  effect  the  evo- 


136  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

lution.  Possibly  one,  having  formed  an  abstract  idea  of 
a  head,  undertook  its  development.  The  process  is  con- 
tinued uninterruptedly  through  millions  of  generations 
till  sufficient  material  has  been  accumulated  in  one  spot 
and  for  one  specific  purpose,  the  formation  of  a  head.  All 
temptations  to  employ  this  material  to  form  legs  or  arms 
have  been  successfully  resisted.  A  nerve  now  becomes 
sensitive  to  the  light.  A  spot  where  the  skin  is  thin 
becomes  sensitive  to  odors.  Near  this,  owing  to  the 
stretching  of  the  skin,  the  absorption  of  food  has  become 
somewhat  easier.  A  mouth  is  in  process  of  formation; 
and  of  course  an  alimentary  canal  will  follow.  Tens  of 
millions  of  generations  have  been  necessary  to  attain 
these  results.  Myriads  of  chances  of  losing  these  slight 
increments  of  improvement,  during  this  protracted  period, 
have  come  and  gone;  still,  the  mysterious  process  goes 
on  uninterruptedly.  Individuals  that  for  tens  of  thou- 
sands of  generations  have  been  endeavoring  to  develop  a 
leg  have  intercrossed  with  these  head-forming  individuals 
and  have  striven  to  employ  the  accumulated  material  in 
the  formation  of  some  means  of  locomotion;  but  the 
"  head  "-tendency  has  been  preponent,  and  now  a  perfect 
head  crowns  the  combined  efforts  of  billions,  though  the 
happy  possession  of  but  one. 

This  seems  considerably  like  a  miracle. 

What  has  happened  ?  A  single  intelligent  design  has 
been  effected  by  the  combined  agency  of  millions  of 
unintelligent  creatures  operating  through  thousands  of 
years,  without  Divine  Superintendence  and  under  condi- 
tions in  which,  in  the  first  transformation  at  least,  no 
conceivable  agency,  not  even  natural  selection,  could 
have  operated.  These  individuals,  while  freely  inter- 
crossing, as  they  must  have  done,  with  the  descendants 
of  unimproved  varieties,  still  persisted  in  the  purpose  of 


DARWIN'S    PRIMORDIAL    GERMS.  137 

developing  a  head,  accumulating  and  preserving  slight 
increment's  of  advancement  headward,  though,  for  aught 
that  can  be  made  to  appear  to  the  contrary,  inter- 
crossing must  have  occurred  between  individuals,  one 
of  which  was  devoting  all  its  energies  to  evolve  a  head 
and  the  other  taxing  all  its  powers  to  develop  a  leg. 
How  are  we  to  account  for  the  fact  that  these  antagon- 
istic purposes  did  not  destroy  each  other  ?  Were  the 
descendants  of  the  several  germs  kept  apart  till  one 
family  had  developed  a  head;  another,  a  pair  of  legs; 
another,  fins.  Or  did  each  family  evolve  all  the  organs  ? 
If  so,  did  each  develop  them  concurrently,  or  each, 
successively  ?  or  some  concurrently,  and  some  succes- 
sively ?  How  were  all  these  purposes  carried  forward 
to  completion  without  producing  confusion  ?  This 
is  an  enigma  which  evolutionists  will  find  difficulty  in 
answering. 

Nor  is  this  the  only  difficulty.  The  tendency  to 
revert  to  ancestral  forms  is  as  powerful  as  the  ten- 
dency to  preserve  increments  of  improvement;  and  the 
tendency  may  lie  latent  in  organisms  for  thousands  of 
generations.     It  is  affirmed: 

"  In  every  living  creature,  we  may  feel  assured,  that  a  host  of  lost  characters 
lie  ready  to  be  evolved,  under  proper  conditions.  .  .  .  What  can  be  more 
wonderful  than  that  characters  which  have  disappeared  during  scoxes  or 
hundreds  or  even  thousands  of  generations,  should  suddenly  reappear  perfectly 
developed  ?  .  .  .  This  principle  of  reversion  is  the  most  wonderful  of  all  the 
attributes  of  inheritance." — Animals  and  Plants  under  Domestication,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  446,  447- 

Let  us  suppose  that  in  every  thousand  individuals, 
one  reverts  to  the  ancestral  form.  Then  in  a  million 
individuals,  which  are  seeking  to  develop  a  leg,  one 
thousand  would  become  legless  by  reversion  in  a  single 
generation. 

In  the  same  generation  many  more  might  revert  to 


138  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

intermediate  ancestral  forms — indeed  we  may  believe 
they  would.  These  deteriorated  animals,  in  every  con- 
ceivable stage  of  reversionary  structure,  would  tend 
powerfully,  by  mating  with  unimproved  individuals,  to 
evolve  the  leg  away  from  all.  If,  in  spite  of  this  barrier 
to  the  successful  evolution  of  a  leg,  some  favored  indi- 
viduals, by  mating  with  each  other,  should  succeed  in 
their  endeavor,  how  is  it  possible  to  resist  the  conviction 
that  the  less  favored  individuals,  would  either  have 
perpetuated  their  half-legless  condition  to  the  present 
time,  or  have  left  traces  of  their  existence  in  the  rocks 
which  contain  a  full  account  of  past  transformations. 
Strange  to  say,  we  have  no  testimony  to  the  existence  of 
generations  that  lived  while  a  leg  was  in  process  of  form- 
ation, nor  to  the  thousands  of  individuals,  which  must 
have  reverted  to  the  transitional  stages  of  leglessness. 
And  yet,  as  is  conceded  by  evolutionists,  not  one  single 
transitional  form  has  been  discovered.  What  becomes 
then  of  the  theory  that  highly  organized  animals  have 
been  slowly  developed  through  millions  of  generations 
from  a  few  germs  or  from  an  uncompounded,  undifferen- 
tiated mass  of  nucleus  and  protoplasm  ? 

4.  The  theory  requires  us  to  believe  that  through  a 
graduated  scale  of  beings  the  higher  forms  of  animals 
have  evolved,  the  process  extending  through  all  the  in- 
termediate links  from  the  lowest  animal  organism  up  to 
man  and  occupying  millions  of  years  for  its  completion. 
There  evidently  must  have  been  an  intelligent  design, 
a  judicious  adaptation  of  means  to  ends.  Where  did  this 
intelligent  purpose  reside  ?  Manifestly  not  in  material 
nature. 

Nor  could  it  have  resided  in  the  individuals  of  each 
succeeding  generation,  and  have  been  by  them  trans- 
mitted to  offspring,  for  how  could  the  polyp  have  pos- 


DARWIN'S    PRIMORDIAL    GERMS.  139 

sessed  an  intelligent  design  in  reference  to  the  adaptation 
of  means  for  the  evolution  of  the  first  man  from  ape- 
like progenitors.  Even  if  he  had  possessed  this  remark- 
able prescience,  its  transmission  through  generations,  to 
all  of  which  it  must  have  been  a  hidden  treasure,  would 
have  been  an  impossibility.  To  believe,  as  the  theory 
requires,  that  such  wisdom  may  be  resident  in  the  suc- 
cession of  individuals  demands  a  measure  of  credulity 
in  comparison  with  which  the  faith  which  accepts,  in  a 
literal  sense,  the  Biblical  account  of  Jonah's  residence 
for  three  days  in  his  piscatorial  home,  without  air  and 
without  conversion  into  whale,  is  a  mere  child  half 
smothered  in  rationalism. 

If  my  neighbor  should  discover  a  poem,  written  in 
modern  English,  traced  in  solid  rock  underneath  several 
layers  of  superincumbent  earth,  the  layers  evidently  being 
precisely  the  same  in  every  respect  as  they  were  when 
left  by  the  hand  of  nature,  he  would  be  forced  to  ask, 
Whence  came  these  sentences  ?  I,  being  an  evolutionist, 
volunteer  my  solution:  Neighbor,  animals  of  the  lowest 
form  crawled  over  that  material  when  it  was  plastic  clay, 
soon  after  the  close  of  the  azoic  period,  when  as  yet  life 
pulsated  in  no  more  complex  organisms  than  trilobites. 
In  the  infinity  of  trails  possible  to  be  made  by  these 
primeval  creatures,  this  poem  was  one. 

Not  convinced,  my  neighbor  responds:  It  is  incon- 
ceivable:— there  are  quintillions  of  chances  against  one, 
that  these  animals  should  have  crawled  out  intelligible 
sentences: — besides  the  English  language  must  have  been 
evolved  in  comparatively  recent  centuries,  being  an  illus- 
tration of  the  theory  of  progression  under  the  superin- 
tendence of  the  struggle  for  existence,  survival  of  the 
fittest,  environment,  etc.; — like  the  grass  on  the  grave  of 
your  babe,  the  English  language  waves  over  the  tomb  of 


140  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

the  dead,  and  is  as  unlike  any  language  that  went  before 
as  that  bending  blade  of  luxuriant  grass  is  unlike  to  the 
prattling  child  which  you  pressed  to  your  bosom  when 
intelligence  beamed  in  its  eye,  and  deposited  in  its  coffin 
when  the  throbbing  heart  ceased  to  beat. 

I  reply:  For  millions  of  years  animals  crawled  over 
this  rock  when  it  was  mud,  crawled  in  every  direction, 
— can  you  prove  that  among  the  trillions  of  possible 
tracks  taken  by  quadrillions  of  creeping  things  during 
chiliads  of  ages,  it  was  impossible  that  this  sentence,  and 
even  this  entire  poem,  should  have  resulted  ? 

My  antagonist  thoughtfully  answers:  No,  I  cannot 
prove  it;  but  I  supposed  it  was  your  business  to  prove  how 
the  poem  originated,  not  mine  to  force  reason  into  the 
acceptance  of  an  explanation  which  has  a  countless 
number  of  chances  against  it  and  scarcely  one  in  its 
favor. 

Warming  with  enthusiasm,  I  add:  Moreover,  it  is  im- 
possible to  determine  the  potency  of  physical  agencies; 
nay,  impossible  to  prove  that  in  those  remote  eras  forces 
were  not  in  operation  that  have  long  since  ceased  to 
operate;  the  animal's  legs  might  have  been  directed 
by  the  power  which  evolved  a  world  out  of  chaos. 

To  return  within  the  circumscribed  limits  of  reason, 
one  is  disposed  to  ask,  Is  there  less  wisdom  manifest  in 
the  construction  of  an  eye,  an  ear,  a  hand  ?  No:  there 
is  more.  There  is,  then,  an  almost  infinite  number  of 
chances  against  the  assumption  that  animals,  groping 
in  every  conceivable  direction  for  improvement,  should 
have  stumbled  upon  and  should  have  subsequently 
followed  the  shadowy  line  which  was  to  issue  in  the 
evolution  of  an  eye,  an  ear,  a  hand,  a  heart,  a  brain,  a 
nervous  system;  and  having  evolved  each  of  these  com- 
plicated organs  should  have  manifested  wisdom  sufficient 


DARWIN'S    PRIMORDIAL    GERMS.  Ul 

to  transmit  them  as  a  permanent,  unimprovable  legacy 
to  their  descendants.  He  who  is  capable  of  believing 
that  primordial  germs,  without  the  superintendence 
of  Infinite  Intelligence,  have  evolved  all  animals  from 
the  moneron  to  Archbishop  Butler,  ought  to  main- 
tain logical  consistency  by  asserting  that  these  primitive 
germs  originated  by  evolution  from  inorganic  matter. 
He  should  make  his  theory  sufficiently  extensive  to 
sweep  the  universe.  He  ought  to  conceive  that  space, 
impelled  by  some  energy  evolved  from  nothingness,  orig- 
inated an  atom  of  matter,  which,  being  infinitely  divisi- 
ble, diffused  itself  throughout  immensity,  filling  its  fields 
with  an  attenuated  ether;  that  this,  impressed  with  forces, 
commenced  to  concentrate,  dropping  at  successive  inter- 
vals matter  sufficient  to  form  nebulae;  that  the  matter, 
thus  sloughed  off  from  the  periphery  of  the  revolving 
mass  to  form  solar  systems,  continued  the  process  of 
concentration,  throwing  off  at  convenient  distances,  the 
material  that  was  to  form  worlds,  the  residuum  remaining 
as  a  central  sun  which  lighted  and  governed  its  material 
children;  that  the  matter  left  to  form  each  world  contin- 
ued to  concentrate,  and  after  throwing  off  moon-mate- 
rial condensed  into  gas,  water,  earth,  rock;  that  some 
earth-atom  evolved  itself  into  a  lichen,  thus  originating 
life,  which  under  the  manipulations  of  evolution  has 
covered  continents  with  vegetable  forms,  and  peopled 
earth,  air,  and  water  with  swarming  millions  of  living 
creatures. 

If  we  are  to  adopt  a  theory  of  evolution  which  shall 
dispense  with  the  necessity  of  an  intelligent  First  Cause, 
why  not  indulge  in  speculations  fitted  to  foster  the  hope 
of  reaching  realms  where  reason  no  longer  fetters  the 
imagination  ? 

Another  objection   to  the  acceptance  of  the  theory 


142  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

that  all  living  creatures  have  a  common  parentage  in  a 
few  primordial  germs,  is  the  time  required  for  the  trans- 
formations.    These  must  have  required,  it  is  affirmed,  at 
least  four  hundred  millions  of  years,  if  not,  indeed,  twice  or 
thrice  that  period.    But  unfortunately,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  the  earth  was  fitted  to  sustain  life  in  eras  so  remote. 
Confessedly,   a    measure  of  heat   sufficiently  intense  to 
fuse  metals  is  incompatible  with  any  form  of  life  known 
to  us;  and   according  to  the  careful  computation  of  Sir 
William  Thompson,  this  planet  was  a  molten   mass  four 
hundred  million  years  ago,  if  not  as  recently  as  half  that 
period;  and  has  not  been  sufficiently  cool  to  admit  life  for 
more,  at  longest,  than  one  hundred  million  years.     This, 
however,  is  pronounced  too  brief  for  the  changes   that 
have  occurred.     The  formation  of  animals,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  formation  of  plants  in  an  antecedent  era,  demands, 
on  the  hypothesis  that  they  have  been  evolved  from  a 
few    primordial  germs,  a  more  protracted  period.      The 
transmutations  of  species,  implied  in  the   theory,  could 
not  have  been  effected,  we  are  repeatedly  assured,  in  less 
than  four  hundred  million  years,  if  indeed  in  a  period  so 
circumscribed.     In    that  remote   era,   ere   radiation  had 
lowered  the  temperature  of  the   solar   system,  the  earth 
and  the  sun  must  have  been  in   a  gaseous  state,  unless 
the  cooling  process  has  been  progressing  more  rapidly  in 
the  last  few  thousand  years  than   in   antecedent  periods. 
That  this  has  not  been  the  case  may  be  argued  from   the 
uniformity  of  nature's  laws.     If  the    heat    of  the    earth 
and  of  the  sun  was  not  uniformly  more   intense  through 
each  past  millenium  some  reason  should   be  assigned  for 
the  belief  that  it  may  not   have  been.     Were  these  pri- 
mordial germs  evolving  new  species  during  the  gaseous 
period  ?     No;  for  it  is  conceded  that  life  could  not  have 
been  in  existence  on  the  earth  during  this  state.     Conse- 


DARWIN'S    PRIMORDIAL    GERMS.  143 

quently,  it  is  incumbent  to  prove,  either  that  these  trans- 
formations could  have  occurred  in  a  briefer  period,  or 
that  the  Uniformitarian  Theory  of  nature  is  a  delusion. 

By  way  of  rebuttal  to  the  above  line  of  reasoning", 
it  may  perhaps  be  said  that  there  is  no  satisfactory 
evidence  that  the  solar  system  has  been  undergoing  a 
process  of  cooling;  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  absolute 
waste  in  the  universe,  that  consequently  heat  which  has 
passed  from  the  sun  is  not  wasted,  but  necessarily  exists 
somewhere,  since  it  cannot  become  a  nonentity,  nor 
remain  in  vacuo  or  in  empty  space,  that  accordingly 
there  is  as  much  heat  in  the  universe,  and  probably  as 
much  in  the  solar  system,  as  there  ever  was;  that  inas- 
much as  heat  is  absorbed  sunlight  and  has  no  existence 
till  light  becomes  imprisoned  in  matter, — it  is  more  con- 
sonant with  reason  to  believe  that  the  heat  of  the  solar 
system  has  been  substantially  the  same  in  amount  since 
the  period  when  planets  came  into  existence. 

Possibly  this  may  be  true,  perhaps  is  as  near  the  truth 
as  the  conjecture  that  the  solar  system  is  continuously 
losing  heat,  and  has  been  during  the  period  of  its  exist- 
ence. This,  it  is  true,  would  dispose  of  Mr.  Thomson's 
argument  to  the  effect  that  the  earth  has  not  been  in  a 
condition  to  support  life  for  more  than  a  hundred  thousand 
years;  but  it  is  equally  destructive  to  the  theory,  main- 
tained by  nearly  all  evolutionists,  that  the  matter  which 
now  constitutes  the  solar  system  was  once  in  a  molten 
state,  and  antecedently  in  a  gaseous  condition.  Conse- 
quently, they  must  either  surrender  the  hypothesis  that 
the  planets  are  an  evolution  from  pre-existing  nebulae,  or 
they  must  admit  that  the  earth  has  not  been  in  a  condi- 
tion to  sustain  life  for  the  period  of  time  which  they  as- 
sert is  necessary  to  account  for  the  transmutations  which 
have  occurred   in   the   animal   and  vegetable  kingdoms. 


144  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Either  material  evolution  did  not  occur  under  the  opera- 
tion of  heat,  or  the  world  has  not  been  in  a  condition  to 
sustain  life  for  the  protracted  period  which  the  theory  of 
transmutation  demands. 

Prof.  Huxley  at  one  time  announced  his  belief  that 
bathybius,  a  gelatinous  substance  found  in  the  bed  of  the 
ocean,  was  the  progenitor  of  all  living  creatures.  Strass 
affirmed,  "  Huxley  has  discovered  bathybius,  a  shining 
heap  of  jelly  on  the  sea-bottom.  By  this  the  chasm  may 
be  said  to  be  bridged  and  the  transition  effected  from  the 
inorganic  to  the  organic."  The  existence  of  bathybius 
rendered  it  impossible,  in  his  judgment,  for  a  reasonable 
man  to  retain  faith  in  Scripture.  Alas,  the  fruitlessness 
of  human  speculation  !  The  insecurity  of  pinning  faith 
to  the  dictum  of  an  erring  mortal  !  Bathybius,  on  care- 
ful investigation,  turned  out  to  be  sulphate  of  lime.  Prof. 
Huxley  publicly  repudiated  his  child.  Poor  bathybius, 
named  so  grandly,  honored  so  greatly,  praised  so  un- 
stintingly,  has  been  laid  to  rest.  Though  his  brief  life 
was  an  imposing  pageant,  his  birth,  it  seems,  was  a  blun- 
der, his  old  age  a  burden  to  his  friends,  his  death  the  re- 
moval of  embarrassment,  and  his  burial  a  relief. 

Mr.  Darwin's  statement,  so  far  as  it  may  be  understood 
as  conjecturing  that  possibly  there  may  have  been  but 
one  primordial  germ,  will  come  under  review  in  Hie  suc- 
ceeding chapter. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

HAECKEL'S  PATER   FAMILIAS,    THE  MONERON. 

Professor  Haeckel  of  the  university  of  Jena,  though 
defending  evolution  with  as  much  pertinacity  as  Mr. 
Darwin,  nevertheless  differs  from  him  in  reference  to  the 
origin  of  life,  asserting  that  the  moneron,  "  the  lowest  of 
living  beings,"  originated  in  spontaneous  generation  from 
inorganic  matter.  To  appearances,  he  agrees  with  La- 
mark,  who,  although  he  knew  nothing  of  natural  se- 
lection, originated  the  theory  of  the  transmutation  of 
species,  and  firmly  believed  that  there  was  no  essen- 
tial difference  between  animate  and  inanimate  nature, 
the  causes  which  transform  the  one  being  the  same  as 
those  which  transform  the  other — agencies  which  may 
be  designated  under  a  natural,  uninterrupted,  necessary 
evolution. 

These  moriera,  spontaneously  evolved  from  inorgana, 
Haeckel  regards  as  "  the  primeval  parents  of  all  other 
organisms."  He  defines  the  little  miracle-workers  as 
follows : — 

"  Monera  .  .  .  are  not  only  the  simplest  of  all  observed  organisms,  but  even 
the  simplest  of  all  imaginable  organisms.  .  .  .  All  trace  of  organization — all 
distinction  of  heterogeneous  parts — is  still  wanting  in  them.  .  .  .  The  whole 
body  of  these  most  simple  of  all  organisms— a  semi-fluid,  formless,  and  simple 
lump  of  albumen — consists  in  fact  of  a  single  chemical  combination.  .  .  . 
Monera  ...  are  organisms  not  in  any  way  built  up  of  distinct  organs,  but 
consist  solely  of  a  single  chemical  combination,  and  yet  grow,  nourish,  and 
propagate  themselves.  .  .  .     We  have  the  simplest  of  all  species  of  organisms  in 


146  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

lhc  moncra,  whose  entire  bodies  when  completely  developed  consist  of  nothing 
bat  a  .semi-fluid  albuminous  lump.  .  .  .  Propagation  of  the  monera  is  by  self- 
division.  A  pinching-in  takes  place,  contracting  the  middle  of  the  globule  on 
all  sides,  and  finally  leads  to  the  separation  of  the  two  halves.  Each  half  then 
becomes  rounded  off,  and  now  appears  as  an  independent  individual,  which 
commences  anew  the  simple  course  of  vital  phenomena  of  nutrition  and  propa- 
gation. .  .  .  When  the  moneron  moves  itself,  there  are  formed  on  the  upper 
surface  of  the  little  mucus  globule  shapeless  finger-like  processes,  or  very  fine 
radiated  threads;  these  are  the  so-called  false  feet  or  pseudopia."— Haeckel's 
History  of  Creation,  vol.  i.  p.  186,  330,  334,  344,  345- 

We  are  safe,  we  think,  in  affirming  that  Professor 
Haeckel  degraded  the  moneron  in  order  to  assist  reason 
in  accepting  the  theory  of  spontaneous  generation.  He 
says: — 

"  Only  such  homogeneous  organisms  as  are  not  yet  differentiated,  and  are 
similar  to  the  inorganic  crystals,  in  being  homogeneously  composed  of  one 
single  substance,  could  arise  by  spontaneous  generation  and  could  become  the 
primeval  parents  of  all  other  organisms.  .  .  .  Through  the  discovery  of  these 
organisms,  which  are  of  the  utmost  importance,  the  supposition  of  a  sponta- 
neous generation  loses  most  of  its  difficulties.  .  .  .  We  can  easily  imagine  their 
origin  by  spontaneous  generation."— Haeckel's  History  of  Creation,  vol.  i.  pp. 
185,  332,  187. 

Let  us  see  if  he  has  not  degraded  the  moneron  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  unfit  it  for  becoming  "  the 
primeval  parent  of  all  other  organisms."  Possibly,  in 
pronouncing  it  so  simple  that  "we  can  easily  imagine 
its  origin  by  spontaneous  generation,"  he  has  inad- 
vertently pronounced  it  so  simple  that  reason  is  inca- 
pable of  perceiving  how  all  forms  of  life  could  be  evolved 
from  it. 

If,  as  is  affirmed,  "  the  moneron  is  not  only  the  sim- 
plest of  all  observed  organisms,  but  the  simplest  of  all 
imaginable  organisms,"  then  it  is  not  a  living  organism. 
A  crystal,  a  lump  of  carbon,  a  ball  of  platinum — each  an 
organism — would  be  pronounced  simpler  than  the  mon- 
eron.    It  is  even  possible  to  conceive  that  there  should 


HA  ECKEL'S  PATER  FA  MILT  AS,    THE  MONERON.      147 

be  a  drop  of  albumen  which  was  not  a  moneron;  and  yet  in 
this  albuminous  lump  there  is  organism,  an  arrangement 
of  the  atoms  in  reference  to  each  other.  If  this  drop 
by  some  mysterious  process,  known  only  to  spontaneous 
generation,  became  possessed  of  the  power  of  moving 
itself,  or  forming  "  shapeless,  finger-like  processes,"  of 
propagating  itself,  of  developing  in  the  lapse  of  time  all 
animal  existences,  it  should  no  longer  be  denominated 
"  the  simplest  of  all  imaginable  organisms."  In  becom- 
ing possessed  of  these  powers  it  must  have  ceased  to  be  "  a 
simple  lump  of  albumen."  If  after  spontaneous  genera- 
tion had  done  its  work  it  was  "  nothing  but  a  semi-fluid 
albuminous  lump,"  then  it  was  not  a  living  organism;  for 
as  Huxley  avers,  "No  living  creature  is  throughout  of 
homogeneous  substance,"  and  as  Darwin  asserts,  "  Each 
living  creature  must  be  looked  upon  as  a  microcosm — 
formed  of  a  host  of  self-propagating  organisms,  incon- 
ceivably minute,  and  numerous  as  the  stars  of  heaven." 
Accordingly,  if  the  moneron  is  "one  single  homoge- 
neous substance,"  it  is  not  a  living  creature.  If  on  the 
other  hand,  it  was  a  living  organism,  then  the  author  has 
slandered  it  by  describing  it  as  "  a  semi-fluid,  formless, 
and  simple  lump  of  albumen,"  "  homogeneous  and  form- 
less matter,"  "homogeneously  composed  of  one  single 
substance,"  "  nothing  but  a  semi-fluid  albuminous  lump," 
which  "  we  can  easily  imagine  to  have  originated  in 
spontaneous  generation."  For  such  slander  adequate 
apology  is  not  found  in  its  being  twice  denominated  "  a 
single  chemical  combination,"  for  this  expression  must  be 
interpreted  to  mean  "one  single  substance,"  "a  simple 
lump  of  albumen." 

Fewer  difficulties  would  environ  the  theory  if  the 
moneron  were  described  as  a  simple  cell.  It  is  not,  how- 
ever.    He  affirms: — 


148  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

"Cells  by  no  means  represent  quite  the  lowest  grade  of  organic  individuality 
.  .  .  There  are  yet  more  elementary  organisms  .  .  .  These  are  cytods  .  .  . 
For  example,  the  moncra  are  cytods  of  this  kind  .  .  .  Strictly  speaking  the 
elementary  organism  of  the  individual  .  .  .  occurs  in  two  grades.  The  first 
and  lowest  is  the  cytod,  which  consists  merely  of  an  atom  of  plasson.  The 
second  and  higher  grade  is  the  cell,  which  has  been  differentiated  into  nucleus 
and  protoplasm.  As  a  rule  the  nucleus  of  the  egg  is  a  soft,  often  vesicular 
texture.  Within  this  nucleus,  as  in  many  other  cells,  is  enclosed  a  third  body 
which  in  ordinary  cells  is  called  the  nucleolus.  Lastly,  in  many,  but  not  in  all 
eggs,  within  this  germinal  spot  is  found  another  little  point,  a  nucleolinus,  which 
may  be  called  the  germinal  point  .  .  .  The  simplest  cell  consists  of  at  least 
two  parts,  the  inner  firmer  kernel,  and  the  outer  softer  cell -substance  or  proto- 
plasm. These  two  distinct  parts  can  only  have  come  into  being  by  differen- 
tiation of  the  homogeneous  plasson  of  a  moneron." — HaeckePs  Evolution  of 
Man,  vol.  i.  pp.  118,  130. 

It  seems  as  though  the  initial  processes  would  have 
been  less  inexplicable  if  evolution  had  begun  in  a  perfect 
cell  with  its  "  protoplasm,"  its  "  nucleus,''  its  "  nucleolus," 
and  its  "  nucleolinus."  The  cell,  however,  is  evolved 
from  the  homogeneous  plasson  of  a  moneron,  i.  e.t  from 
"a  simple  lump  of  albumen."  This  is  not  only  a  living 
creature  but  it  is  capable  of  differentiating  into  a  hetero- 
geneous substance.  How  did  the  "lump  of  albumen " 
transmute  itself  into  "  plasson  "  ?  How  did  the  "  plasson" 
evolve  a  cell  with  its  "  inner  firmer  kernel  and  its  outer 
softer  cell-substance  or  protoplasm  "  ?  We  know  what  is 
meant  by  the  differentiation  of  a  germ.  This,  however, 
is  not  one  single  substance,  a  simple  "  albuminous  lump." 
Until  we  are  aided  in  conceiving  how  a  cytod  could  have 
evolved  into  a  one-celled  organism,  it  is  difficult  to  be- 
lieve that  the  moneron  is  "the  primeval  parent  of  all 
organisms,"  since  "  all  animals,  including  man,  descended 
originally  from  a  one-celled  organism."  If  the  moneron 
is  included  in  the  term  "all  animals,"  then  it  is  not 
"  primeval,"  but  some  "one-celled  organism  "  is;  if  it  is 
not  included,  but  is  the  "primeval  parent"  of  all  animal 


HAECKEUS  PATER  FAMILIAS,    THE  MONEROJV.      119 

existences,  then  why  say,  "all  animals,  including  man, 
descended  originally  from  a  one-celled  organism  "  ?  They 
must  have  descended  "originally"  from  the  moneron,  an 
organism  more  elementary  than  cells. 

It  is  also  asserted  that  in  the  moneron,  "  all  trace  of 
organism,  all  distinction  of  heterogeneous  parts,  is  still 
wanting."  "  It  is  nothing,  when  fully  developed,  but  a 
semi-fluid,  formless,  and  simple  lump  of  albumen."  How 
then  can  we  conceive  it  capable  of  being  the  progenitor 
of  all  animals  ?  And  yet  this  organless  creature  has 
the  power  of  moving,  of  assimilating  food,  of  self-propa- 
gation. Can  it  carry  forwards  the  functions  of  vitality 
— locomotion,  nutrition,  reproduction — without  organs  ? 
How  can  it  throw  out  "shapeless,  finger-like  processes, 
the  so-called  false  feet"  if  "  all  distinction  of  heterogen- 
eous parts  is  still  wanting  "  ?  Wherein  resides  the  power 
of  absorption  if  there  are  no  organs  ?  By  what  agency  is 
the  "  pinching-in  process"  carried  on  till  self-division 
results  ? 

As  described,  the  moneron  must  have  organs;  and  if 
it  has  organs  there  must  have  been  a  long  series  of 
antecedent  organisms. 

Mr.  Haeckel  affirms: — 

"  Every  organism,  composed  of  organs,  can  only  have  originated  from  an 
undifferentiated  lower  organism  by  differentiation  of  its  parts  and  consequently 
by  phylogeny." 

Then  the  moneron,  since  it  has  organs,  must  have  orig- 
inated by  differentiation  from  an  undifferentiated,  lower, 
older,  and  simpler  form,  and  consequently  by  phylogeny. 
By  phylogeny  ! — there  must  have  been  not  only  one  or- 
ganism anterior  to  the  moneron  but  many,  for  he  defines 
phylogeny  as  the  history  of  the  protracted  descent  of 
germs  from  pre-existing  organisms.     The  moneron,  if  it 


150  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

has  organs,  must  be  the  result  of  a  vast  number  of  trans- 
mutations on  the  part  of  pre-existing  species.* 

If  to  avoid  this  embarrassing  conclusion  we  lay  stress 
upon  the  assertion  that  the  moneron  is  wanting  "  in  all 
distinction  of  heterogeneous  parts,"  then  we  are  forced 
back  upon  the  assumption  that  a  living  creature  can  pos- 
sess functions  of  life,  can  appropriate  food,  can  move,  can 
grow  by  the  assimilation  of  food  taken  within  its  simple 
lump,  can  reproduce  itself,  without  any  organs  whatso- 
ever.    An  assumption  so  absurd  needs  no  refutation. 

The  author  of  The  Evolution  of  Man,  The  History  of 
Creation,  General  Morphology,  etc.,  seems  to  be  under 
a  fatal  enchantment  forcing  him,  in  his  philosophical 
inquiries,  into  many  contradictory  statements.  As  he- 
is  treating  profound  themes  which  few  presume  to 
handle,  and  as  he  discourses  upon  them  fully  and  with  a 
measure  of  originality  rarely  met  with,  a  few  contradic- 
tions might  be  expected  to  occur  and  would  be  gener- 
ously condoned,  but  the  antagonistic  statements  are  so 
numerous,  and  so  palpably  self-destructive,  that  charity 
finds   it  difficult  to  throw  her  mantle  over  them.     Will 

*  "The  history  of  the  evolution  of  organisms  consists  of  two  kindred  and 
closely  connected  parts:  Ontogeny,  which  is  the  history  of  the  evolution  of 
individual  organisms,  and  Phytogeny,  which  is  the  history  of  the  evolution 
of  organic  tribes.  Ontogeny  is  a  brief  and  rapid  recapitulation  of  phytogeny.  .  .  . 
The  individual  organism  reproduces  in  the  rapid  and  short  course  of  its  own 
evolution  the  most  important  of  the  changes  in  form  through  which  its  ances- 
tors ...  .  have  passed  in  the  slow  and  long  course  of  their  palaeonfa 
evolution.  The  history  of  the  germ  is  an  epitome  of  the  history  of  descent;  or 
in  other  words  ontogeny  is  a  recapitulation  of  phytogeny;  or  somewhat  more 
explicitly,  the  series  of  forms  through  which  the  individual  organism  passes 
(}„,in  i  ">m  the  egg-cell  to  its  fully  developed  state,  is  a  brief,  corn- 

's reproduction  of  the  Long  series  of  form-  through  which  the  animal 
ancestors  of  that  organism  have  passed  from  the  earliest  perio  Is  of  so-called 
organic  creation  down  to  the  present  time."— Ilacckel,  Evolution  of  .Van, 
vol.  i.  pp.  i  -6. 


HAECKEDS  PATER  FAMILIAS,    THE  MONERON.      151 

it  cover  the  following  ? — After  repeatedly  affirming  that 
the  moneron  is  "  a  simple  lump  of  albumen,"  "  one  sin- 
gle substance," "homogeneous  matter,"  "  homogeneously 
composed  of  one  single  substance,"  "  nothing  but  a  semi- 
fluid, formless,  and  simple  lumpof  albumen,"  "the  simplest 
of  all  imaginable  organisms  "  ;  after  asserting  that  "  all 
distinction  of  heterogeneous  parts  is  wanting," — he  else- 
where affirms,  "  All  animals  and  all  plants,  in  fact  all 
organisms,  consist  in  great  measure  of  fluid-water."  Then 
the  moneron  is  neither  an  animal  nor  an  organism  unless 
it  has  more  than  "  one  single  substance."  He  affirms: 
"  In  its  early  stages,  the  human  embryo  contains  ninety 
per  cent  of  water.  .  .  .  Without  water  there  is  no  life." 
If  the  moneron  has  any  life  whatever,  it  must  be  com- 
posed in  part  of  water;  but  it  is  one  "single  substance." 
It  is,  however,  the  "  primeval  parent  of  all  other  organ- 
isms," and  consequently  must  have  been  about  ninety 
per  cent  water — must  at  least  have  had  some,  for 
"without  water  there  is  no  life."  Apparently  "the 
organless  organism,"  "the  simple  albuminous  lump," 
is  too  simple  to  have  been  "  the  primeval  parent  of  all 
other  organisms." 

The  author  defines  ontogeny  as  the  history  of  the 
germ,  or  the  recapitulation,  in  the  embryonic  state,  of 
phylogeny,  that  is,  of  all  the  successive  changes  through 
which  a  species  has  passed  in  its  evolution  from  primitive 
ancestors.  According  to  this  fundamental  ontogenetic 
law  every  animal,  including  man,  should  begin  in  its 
embryonic  state  in  a  cytod  and  successively  evolve 
through  all  the  intermediate  links  to  the  particular  stage 
of  evolution  attained  by  its  species.  The  links  between 
the  first  living  organism  and  man  are  declared  to  be 
twenty-two,  though  the  reader  finds  it  impossible  to 
determine   the   several    animal    forms    assumed    by   the 


152  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

human  embryo  during  the  period  of  development.  Pro- 
tracted portions  of  the  history  appear  totally  illegible. 
Nevertheless,  this  ontogenetic  law  is  declared  to  be 
fundamental — every  animal,  during  its  embryonic  state, 
passes  through  all  the  changes  through  which  its  species 
passed  in  its  evolution  from  the  primeval  parent  of  all 
organisms.  Strange  to  say,  after  half  a  volume  is  taken 
up  in  the  attempt  to  establish  this  law,  man's  history  is 
represented  as  beginning  in  a"  one-celled  organism,"  and 
not  in  a  cytod.  The  argument  from  ontogeny,  which  is 
regarded  as  original  and  unanswerable,  should  have  based 
itself  upon  irrefragible  evidence  that  all  animals  begin  in 
a  cytod.  No,  the  law  is  deliberately  ignored.  Instead 
of  possessing  unmistakable  testimony  that  the  human 
embryo,  and  every  other  animal  embryo,  is  a  moneron  in 
the  first  stage  of  its  existence,  we  are  confronted  with 
the  assertion,  "all  animals  descend  originally  from  a 
one-celled  organism."  Of  what  value  is  this  ontogenetic 
law  in  furnishing  a  recapitulation  ofphylogeny,  if,  instead 
of  reproducing  the  earliest  ancestral  form  it  contents 
itself  with  beginning  in  a  complex  cell  ?  And  yet,  in 
subsequent  eras,  the  task  of  "  reproducing,  in  the  course 
of  its  own  evolution,  the  most  important  of  the  changes 
in  form  through  which  its  ancestors  .  .  .  have  passed  in 
the  slow  and  long  course  of  their  pahxontological  evo- 
lution," seems  to  have  been  insufficient  to  exhaust  its 
energies,  leaving  it  equal  to  the  profitless  labor  of  fur- 
nishing the  earliest  vertebrate  animals  with  large  heads 
in  the  first  stages  of  embryonic  development  instead  of 
leaving  them  headless  like  their  acephalous  ancestors. 
It  appears,  in  subsequent  ages,  to  have  possessed  power 
adequate  to  the  reproduction  in  the  stages  of  embryonic 
development  of  what  had  not  been  previously  produced 
by  phylogenetic   evolution  ;  for  example,  the  embryonic 


HAECKEUS  PATER  FAMILIAS,    THE  MONERON.      153 

tail  of  the  turtle.  It  had  unemployed  energy  adequate  to 
the  task  of  enabling  the  shad  to  reproduce,  during  the 
earlier  stages  of  its  embryonic  unfolding,  its  own  gill- 
arches.  One  would  naturally  suppose  that  these — as  the 
animal  retains  them  during  its  existence  and  must  have 
received  them  as  a  part  of  its  legacy  from  less  complex 
progenitors — would  be  a  later  embryonic  evolution. 

We  are  expected  to  believe  in  ontogenesis  and  to  be- 
lieve also  that  the  moneron  is  "  the  primeval  parent 
of  all  other  organisms."  If  we  accept  the  one,  we  con- 
sider ourselves  logically  forced  to  reject  the  other.  Still 
we  are  asked  to  believe  both,  though  "  where  faith  begins, 
science  ends." 

How  does  the  phylogenetic  law  stand  related  to  the 
venerable  head  of  all  living  organisms  ?  This  fundamental 
law  is  that  every  organic  tribe  of  beings  has  a  phylogeny, 
or  history  of  its  evolution,  which  history  is  reproduced  by 
ontogeny,  the  compressed  history  of  the  series  of  ante- 
cedent transmutations.  Let  us  see.  The  moneron  is  an 
organic  tribe,  extensive,  long-lived,  and  important.  It 
peoples  ocean-beds.  It  has  come  down  to  the  present. 
It  is  declared  to  be  "  the  primeval  parent  of  all  other 
organisms."  It  is  an  organism,  for  it  has  the  functions 
of  life.  It  certainly  must  have  had  some  kind  of  history 
during  its  evolution  from  inorganic  matter,  for  evolution 
is  invariably  by  slow  and  nearly  imperceptible  stages. 
The  history  must  be  interesting  and  would  be  of  impor- 
tance to  science.  And  yet,  strange  to  say,  no  effort  is 
made  to  recount  it,  though  this  is  the  point  upon  which 
special  attention  should  have  been  concentrated.  If  the 
first  moneron  came  into  being  by  spontaneous  generation, 
every  subsequent  moneron  ought  to  have  furnished  us  a 
brief  compressed  history  of  the  interesting  process.  It 
was  evolved.    It  must  have  a  history.    That  history  ought 


154  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

to  be  a  recapitulation  of  the  stages  through  which  the 
first  moncron  passed  in  its  evolution  from  inorgana.    Why 

has  not  the  moneron  been  subjected  to  rigid  microscopic 
inspection  during  the  period  of  "  self-propagation  by  di- 
vision," in  order  to  ascertain  this  phylogeny  ?  If  the 
charges  undergone  during  this  period  had  been  exhibited 
in  charts  as  the  tail  and  the  gill-arches  of  the  human 
embryo  have  been,  it  would  perhaps  have  been  possible 
to  perceive  the  mysterious  course  pursued  by  inorganic 
matter  in  evolving  itself  into  a  living  organism.  As  it 
is,  phylogeny  is  powerless  just  where  its  aid  is  most 
needed.  The  theory  would  have  been  strengthened  con- 
siderably, if  instead  of  representing  the  ascidian  as  having 
developed  gills  and  a  rudimentary  tail  long  prior  to  the 
existence  of  fishes,  it  had  simply  given  us  the  phylogeny 
of  the  moneron.  This  would  have  relieved  the  difficulty 
which  now  prevails  in  determining  which  forms  are  pro- 
phetic of  improvements,  and  which  are  recapitulations  of 
stages  through  which  ancestors  passed  in  the  process 
of  evolution. 

Numerous  as  are  the  difficulties  which  connect  them- 
selves with  Haeckel's  description  of  the  moneron  as  related 
to  statements  found  elsewhere  in  his  works,  and  formida- 
ble as  are  the  objections  to  his  theory  founded  upon  the 
extreme  simplicity  of  this  structureless  organization,  we 
are  confronted  with  still  graver  difficulties  when  we 
undertake  to  evolve  "all  other  organisms  from  it."  Being 
of  "  one  single  substance,"  how  could  it  produce  varia- 
tions ?  If  it  had  been  described  as  a  gaseous  substance 
we  might  have  believed  it  capable  of  combining  by 
chemical  affinity  with  other  substances,  and  so  differen- 
tiating. If  organs  had  been  assigned  to  it  we  might 
have  concluded  that  slight  variations  were  possible. 
If  instead  of  being  characterized  as   "  a  simple  album- 


HAECKEVS  PATER  FAM/L/AS,    THE  MONERON.      155 

inous  lump,"  it  had  been  pronounced  "a  chemical  com- 
bination," the  difficulties  would  have  been  less  serious. 
How  "  one  organless  substance  "  could  have  produced  the 
changes  characteristic  of  evolution,  it  is  difficult  to  see. 
Were  the  variations  spontaneous  ?  The  only  spontaneous 
variation  conceivable  in  "a  semi-fluid,  formless,  and 
simple  lump  of  albumen"  is  its  separation  into  homo- 
geneous parts,  like  the  division  of  a  crystal.  This,  how- 
ever, would  not  aid  in  the  development  of  higher  forms. 
Even  if  variations  could  have  arisen,  how  could  they 
have  been  transmitted  when  propagation  was  by  self- 
division  ?  Any  improvement  must  have  been  divided, 
half  being  retained  by  the  parent  and  half  transmitted  to 
the  child.  Half  an  organ,  for  instance,  half  an  intes- 
tinal canal,  would  have  been  valueless,  and  must  soon 
have  been  eliminated  from  the  creature's  system  as  a  use- 
less burden,  leaving  its  descendants  to  begin  ab  initio,  as 
its  progenitor  did.  If  it  is  said  that,  strictly  speaking, 
the  moneron  does  not  divide  itself  but  develops  another 
moneron  out  of  its  own  body;  then  we  reply,  it  is  not,  as 
asserted,  "the  simplest  imaginable  organism,"  nor  even 
the  simplest  observed  organism,  for  there  are  worms 
whose  number  may  be  multiplied  by  simply  cutting  them 
into  pieces,  each  piece  becoming  as  perfect  as  the  undi- 
vided parent.  Accordingly,  how  "  the  simplest  imaginable 
organism  "  which  propagates  itself  by  self-division  can 
transmit  improvements,  even  supposing  it  capable  of 
acquiring  them,  is  what  evolutionists  ought  to  have  made 
clearer.  Acquired  advantages,  we  are  told,  are  trans- 
mitted by  inheritance;  but  to  the  uninitiated,  it  looks 
like  a  misapplication  of  the  term  "inheritance"  to  say 
that  the  piece,  which  may  be  cut  from  the  center  of  a 
worm,  inherited  from  its  ancestor  a  head  and  a  tail.  It 
has  neither. 


156  THEISM   AXD    EVOLUTION. 

The  exertions  of  the  moneron  to  produce  variations 
could  scarcely  have  been  aided  by  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence, for  with  the  entire  earth  for  a  home  and  no  living 
organisms  as  competitors,  the  struggle  for  existence 
could  not  have  been  very  intense,  certainly  not  as  in- 
tense as  now  when  monera,  though  numerous,  fail  in 
producing  the  slightest  variations.  Nor  could  survival 
of  the  fittest  have  aided  in  evolving  improvements;  for, 
even  supposing  there  was  an  appreciable  difference  be- 
tween the  fittest  and  the  least  fit,  the  latter  surely  could 
survive  if  the  first  moneron  did,  since,  by  supposition, 
nothing  could  have  been  less  adapted  to  survive  than 
"a  semi-fluid,  formless,  and  simple  lump  of  albumen." 
Certainly  sexual  selection  could  not  have  rendered  as- 
sistance, for  the  little  puzzle  was  bisexual.  What  then 
could  have  caused  variations  ?  If  an  adequate  cause 
existed,  why  has  it  ceased  to  operate,  leaving  present 
monera  powerless  towards  producing  even  the  slightest 
improvements  ? 

In  passing,  we  may  note  another  difficulty,  the  con- 
tinuance of  unimproved  monera  to  the  present  day. 
Darwin  tells  us:  "New  and  improved  varieties  will 
inevitably  supplant  and  exterminate  the  older."  Here 
is  an  insolvable  enigma;  unimproved  and  unimprovable 
monera  still  exist.  By  the  law  of  evolution  they  should 
have  been  exterminated  tens  of  millions  of  years  since, 
or  should  have  been  taught  to  improve.  They  have  had 
time  sufficient  to  become  either  elephants  or  archangels. 
They  do  nothing,  and  still  live.  It  thus  seems  that 
evolution,  the  most  potent  sovereign  in  the  universe,  has 
to  succumb  to  the  moneron.  It  cannot  exterminate  the 
creature,  nor  cause  it  to  vary  in  the  smallest  measure, 
though  from  its  ancient  ancestor  it  evolved  a  Sir  Isaac 
Newton. 


HA  ECKEL'S    PATER    FAMILIAS,     THE    MONERON.      157 

To  return:  neither  could  this  power  of  improvement 
have  been  inherent  in  the  moneron,  for,  as  we  have  just 
said,  this  "simplest  of  all  imaginable  organisms"  still 
lives;  which  is  conclusive  evidence  that  it  did  not  possess 
innate  powers  of  preserving  increments  of  advance.  If  it 
had  possessed  this  power,  if  there  had  been  advances,  how- 
ever slight,  by  this  time  it  would  have  possessed  an  eye, 
an  ear,  an  intestinal  canal — would  have  been  a  creature 
more  advanced  than  "a  being  homogeneously  composed 
of  one  single  substance,"  "nothing  but  a  semi-fluid  albu- 
minous lump,"  "  a  homogeneous  atom  of  plasson."  Had 
it  improved  its  innate  powers,  it  might  have  been  a  fish, 
or  a  kangaroo,  certainly  might  have  been  a  mosquito. 

Supposing  that  in  some  inexplicable  manner  the  an- 
cient moneron,  unlike  its  successors,  did  manage  to  vary 
could  it  have  preserved  the  increments  of  improvement? 
We  answer,  No;  for  Darwin  assures  us, 

"  Monstrosities  cannot  be  separated  by  any  distinct  line  from  slight  varia- 
tions."—  Origin  of  Species,  p.  6.  Again:  "Without  separation  a  single  mon- 
strous variation  would  almost  certainly  be  soon  obliterated." — Variations  of 
Animals  and  Pla/its,  vol.  ii.  p.  495. 

Evidently,  then,  the  variation  of  the  primeval  mon- 
eron could  not  have  been  a  monstrosity — it  would  have 
been  almost  certainly  obliterated.  But  if  natural  selec- 
tion cannot  preserve  marked  modifications,  how  can  it 
preserve  slight  variations  ?  As  a  monstrosity  is  only 
an  augmented  variation,  how  does  it  happen  that  instead 
of  having  greater  power  of  perpetuating  itself  it  actually 
has  less?  If,  as  Darwin  says,  "monstrosities  cannot 
be  separated  by  any  distinct  line  from  slight  variations," 
and  if  monstrosities  are  "almost  certainly  obliterated," 
then  slight  variations  are  as  much  more  likely  to  be 
obliterated  as  the  structural  changes  are  less  marked 
than  those  in  monstrosities. 


158  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

With  the  design,  apparently,  of  making  the  theory 
easier  of  acceptance  it  is  affirmed  that  not  all  monera  im- 
proved at  the  time  higher  forms  branched  off,  but  that  at 
one  time  and  in  one  place,  one  moneron,  and  only  one, 
improved,  leaving  descendants  which  carried  forwards 
the  improvements  till  they  culminated  in  a  more  complex 
form.  Is  it  rational  to  believe  that  if  variation  is  possible 
it  could  only  occur  at  one  time,  and  only  in  one  place,  and 
only  in  the  case  of  one  moneron  ?  If  such  a  change  was 
possible  once,  then,  however  improbable  its  recurrence 
might  be,  it  ought  not  to  be  pronounced  impossible.  If 
it  occurred  once,  it  might  have  occurred  oftener.  If  it 
could  not  occur  a  second  time,  then  it  is  safe  to  say  it 
could  not  have  occurred  the  first  time.  If  the  process 
cannot  repeat  itself,  it  must  be  because  there  is  an  in- 
finite number  of  chances  against  its  recurrence;  but  there 
must  have  been  the  same  number  of  chances  against  its 
occurrence.  Consequently,  the  origin  of  all  forms  of  life 
higher  than  the  moneron  was  once  suspended  upon  this 
shadowy  contingency,  equal  to  an  impossibility.  If  the 
requisite  variation  could  have  occurred  but  once,  then 
the  existence  of  the  entire  animal  kingdom,  including 
man,  is  the  purest  accident  conceivable.  The  strangest 
part  of  all  is,  that  this  creature  which  blundered  so  egre- 
giously — in  violating  all  law  by  doing  what  no  other 
moneron  ever  has  done,  or  ever  can  do — neither  unfitted 
itself  for  its  environment,  nor  lost  its  increments  of  im- 
provement, but  was  fortunate  enough,  after  its  blunder, 
to  retain  all  acquired  advantages  till  it  evolved  male  and 
female  issue,  which  neither  reverted  to  ancestral  forms  nor 
lost  successive  advances  by  inter-crossing.  Strange;  for 
we  are  assured  that  the  variations  of  single  individuals 
are  inevitably  and  speedily  obliterated  by  the  mere  force 
of  the    number   of  unimproved   individuals,    unless    the 


HA  ECKEL'S  PATER   EAM/LZAS,    THE  MONERON.      159 

improved  varieties  are  kept  separate  and  so  induced  to 
breed  inter  se. 

By  commencing-  the  process  of  evolution  in  a  bisexual 
organism,  Haeckel  evinced  wisdom,  for  in  that  class  of 
animals  an  individual  might  improve  without  having  the 
improvements  eliminated  by  the  influence  of  unimproved 
specimens;  but  a  time  must  come  when  improvements 
could  only  have  occurred  by  the  advance  of  the  entire 
species,  or  at  least  of  all  inhabiting  a  particular  locality 
— the  individuals  being  unisexual. 

If  there  were  slight  advances  in  a  few  monera,  and  if 
these  advances  endured  for  a  time,  still  the  chances  that 
these  would  be  lost,  before  they  were  transmitted  to  the 
next  higher  order,  must  have  been  millions  to  one;  and 
in  each  succeeding  stride  to  the  next  species  above — and 
the  number  of  species  is  countless — there  must  also  have 
been  millions  of  chances  of  losing  the  increments  of  im- 
provement ere  the  higher  form  was  evolved,  against  one 
chance  of  retaining  them.  Nay,  according  to  evolution, 
which  denies  the  fixedness  of  species,  the  improvements 
could  never  have  reached  a  point  at  which  they  were 
secure  against  retrogression.  Consequently,  there  must 
have  been  an  infinite  number  of  chances,  on  this  count 
alone,  against  one  chance  that  improvements  could  be 
preserved  "till  man  was  evolved."  Accordingly,  against 
the  assumption  that  a  moneron  could  have  been  evolved 
into  a  Haeckel  we  have  millions  of  chances,  multiplied 
by  the  long  line  of  figures  designating  the  number  of 
marked  varieties  between  the  "  homogeneous  atom  "  and 
man. 

He  who  can  believe  that  man  evolved  from  a  moneron, 
and  a  moneron  evolved  from  matter,  and  matter  evolved 
from  space,  ought  not  to  object  to  the  doctrine  of  a  Per- 
sonal God.     If  from  nothingness  it  is  impossible  that 


1C)0  THE I SAT  AND    EVOLUTION. 

anything  should  be  created  by  an  Intelligent  Being 
possessing  omnipotence,  then  from  nothingness  it  is  im- 
possible that  anything  should  be  created  by  evolution. 
In  its  ultimate  findings,  logic  seems  to  require  us  to 
believe,  either  that  matter  is  eternal  and  omnipotent,  or 
that  there  is  an  Intelligent  Personality  self-existent  in 
essence  and  infinite  in  power.  A  majority  of  the  human 
family  regard  the  latter  proposition  as  more  reasonable 
than  the  former.  Some  theists,  it  is  true,  are  disposed  to 
ask,  How  could  even  an  Omnipotent  Intelligence  create 
a  universe  from  nothingness?  They  prefer  to  regard 
everything  as  an  emanation  from  God— the  material 
universe,  His  outer  garment;  life,  a  quivering  drop  of 
His  own  personality;  spirit,  the  effluence  of  His  being. 
Others  content  themselves  with  the  dictum:  God  exists; 
everything  external  to  Him  owes  its  being  and  its  con- 
tinuance to  His  Unconditional  Will.  One  and  all,  when 
conscious  of  the  overshadowing  presence  of  The  Eternal, 
throw  down  the  weapons  of  reason,  and  walking  softly 
reverently  whisper:  The  Unfathomable  is;  bow  the  knee 
in  worship. 


CHAPTER  X. 

ABIOGENESIS. 

Having  endeavored  to  show  that  neither  the  moneron 
nor  a  few  primordial  germs  could  have  evolved  the  ani- 
mal kingdom  as  it  now  exists,  we  desire  to  direct  the 
reader's  attention  to  some  of  the  difficulties  connected 
with  the  assumption  that  life  originated  in  spontaneous 
generation.  We  make  no  attempt  to  prove  that  it  did 
not  so  originate,  since  that  would  be  to  undertake  the 
impossible  task  of  proving  a  negative;  but  we  hope  to 
present  evidence  sufficient  to  make  it  apparent  to  any- 
unbiased  investigator  that  the  theory  is  a  simple  assump- 
tion having  nothing  for  its  support  except  the  neces- 
sity— keenly  felt  by  atheistic  evolutionists — of  possessing 
a  living  organism  spontaneously  generated.  Professor 
Huxley  frankly  admits  that  the  exigencies  of  his  theory 
furnish  the  only  available  testimony  in  favor  of  abiogen- 
esis,  or  the  origination  of  the  living  from  the  not-living. 
He  says: — 

"  The  course  of  modern  investigation  has  distinctly  tended  to  disprove  the 
occurrence  of  equivocal  generation,  or  abiogenesis,  in  the  present  course  of 
nature.  .  .  .  The  evidence  is  yet  to  be  adduced  which  will  satisfy  any  cautious 
reasoner  that  '  omne  vivum  ex  vivo '  is  not  as  well  established  a  law  of  the 
existing  course  of  nature  as  '  omne  ovum  ex  ovo.'  " — Encyc.  Brit.,  art., 
"  Evolution."  "  The  fact  is  that  at  the  present  moment  there  is  not  a  shadow 
of  trustworthy  direct  evidence  that  abiogenesis  does  take  place,  or  has  taken 
place,  within  the  period  during  which  the  existence  of  life  on  the  globe  is 
recorded.     But  it  need  hardly  be  pointed  out,  that  the  fact  does  not  in  the 


162  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

slightest  degree  interfere  with  any  conclusion  that  may  be  arrived  at  deduc- 
tively from  other  considerations,  that  at  some  time  or  other,  abiogenesis  mu-t 
have  taken  place.  ...  If  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  is  true,  living  matter 
must  have  arisen  from  not-living  matter;  for  by  the  hypothesis,  the  condition 
of  the  globe  was  at  one  time  such  that  living  matter  could  not  have  existed  in 
it,  life  being  entirely  incompatible  with  the  gaseous  state.  But  living  matter 
once  originated,  there  is  no  necessity  for  another  origination,  since  the  hypoth- 
stulates  the  unlimited,  though  perhaps  not  indefinite,  modifibility  of  such 
matter.  ...  Of  the  causes  which  have  led  to  the  origination  of  living  matter, 
then,  it  may  \>e  said  that  we  know  absolutely  nothing.  .  .  .  The  present  state 
of  knowledge  furnishes  us  with  no  link  between  the  living  and  the  not-living.'1 
— Encyc.  Brit.,  art.,  "Biology." 

It  thus  appears  that  a  torturing  necessity,  begotten  in 
the  determination  to  eliminate  God  from  the  universe,  is 
the  main,  if  not  the  only,  proof  which  evolution  can  fur- 
nish that  life  is  a  result  of  spontaneous  generation.  The 
entire  argument  may  be  compressed  into  this  brief  as- 
sertion,— consistency  seems  to  demand  it,  for  a  starting- 
point  is  indispensable,  "  If  the  hypothesis  of  evolution 
is  true,  living  matter  must  have  arisen  from  not-living 
matter."  But  alas,  for  the  theory,  "there  is  not  a 
shadow  of  trustworthy  direct  evidence  that  abiogenesis 
does  take  place,  or  has  taken  place,  within  the  period 
during  which  the  existence  of  life  on  the  globe  is  re- 
corded." Then  there  is  very  little  evidence  that  "  the 
hypothesis  of  evolution  is  true."  Why  cling  so  tena- 
ciously to  a  theory  which  can  only  be  true,  provided  a 
miracle  has  occurred  of  which  there  is  confessedly  nc 
evidence  whatever;  and  against  which,  moreover,  the 
unvarying  uniformity  of  nature's  laws,"  within  the  period 
during  which  the  existence  of  life  on  the  globe  is  re- 
corded," enters  its  determined  protest  ?  Why  do  ad- 
vanced evolutionists,  while  spitefully  insisting  that  the 
uniformity  of  nature's  laws  renders  it  impossible  to  be- 
lieve in  the  miracles  of  Scripture,  still  persist  in  assert- 
ing that  "  abiogenesis,"  the  greatest  of  miracles,  "  must 


ABIOGENESIS.  163 

have  taken  place,"  though  of  testimony  there  is  abso- 
lutely none  ? 

"  But  living  matter  once  originated,  there  is  no  ne- 
cessity for  another  origination."  Why?  Because,  "  the 
hypothesis  postulates  the  unlimited,  though  perhaps  not 
indefinite,  modifibility  of  such  matter."  If  all  that  is 
necessary  is  to  have  some  hypothesis  that  will  "  postulate 
unlimited  modifibility  "  why  not  at  once  fairly  meet  the 
demands  of  the  case  and  squarely  assert  the  "  unlim- 
ited, though  perhaps  not  indefinite,  modifibility  of  such 
matter"  as  is  denominated  inorganic?  By  asserting 
that  it  could  modify  itself  to  an  "unlimited"  extent 
provision  would  be  made  for  man's  advent  upon  the 
stage;  and  by  saying,  very  guardedly,  perhaps  inor- 
ganic matter  cannot  modify  itself  to  an  "indefinite" 
extent,  we  would  be  given  to  understand  that  its  myriad 
attempts  at  "  modification  "  could  never  result  in  pro- 
ducing monstrosities,  but  of  course  could  easily  origi- 
nate a  moneron,  an  amoeba,  a  cytod,  a  homogeneous 
atom  of  plasson.  This  would  render  "  the  hypothesis 
of  evolution"  quite  consistent  throughout;  for  as  the 
subsequent  transmutations,  which  are  accounted  for  by 
saying  the  hypothesis  "postulates"  them,  are  regarded 
as  spontaneous — there  being  no  intelligent  designer  and 
no  secondary  causes  to  which  they  can  be  attributed — it 
will  of  course  be  quite  easy  and  entirely  consistent  to 
affirm  that  it  requires  no  more  faith  to  believe  that 
animal  organisms  originated  in  spontaneous  generation 
than  to  believe  that  man  evolved  himself  from  anthropoid 
apes.  If  apes  possessing  "unlimited  modifibility"  gen- 
erated man  through  numberless  transitional  forms,  all 
of  which  have  perished,  then  manifestly  an  atom  of  earth 
possessing  "  unlimited  modifibility  "  may  have  spontane- 
ously generated  a  moneron,  especially  as  it  enjoyed  an 


164  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

eternity  in  which  to  try,  and  may  have  been  kept  from 
blundering  because  its  "  modifibility  was  perhaps  not 
indefinite."  As  there  could  be  no  transitional  forms 
between  the  living  and  the  not-living,  one  difficulty 
connected  with  subsequent  transmutations  would  not 
cause  embarrassment.  Of  course  no  intermediate  forms 
would  be  expected  to  exist. 

"  If  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  is  true,  living  matter  must  have  arisen  from 
not-living  matter."  "  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  trustworthy  direct  evidence 
that  abiogenesis  does  take  place,  or  has  taken  place,  within  the  period  during 
which  life  on  the  globe  is  recorded." 

"  At  some  time  or  other  abiogenesis  must  have  taken  place." 
"Evolution  postulates  the  unlimited,  though  perhaps  not  indefinite,  modifi- 
bility of  living  matter," 

The  argument  here  outlined,  when  presented  in  syllo- 
gistic form,  is  as  follows: — 

1.  If  evolution  is  true,  abiogenesis  must  have  occurred 
at  some  time; 

2.  Evolution  may  be  true; 

Therefore,  Abiogenesis  may  have  occurred. 

The  premises  will  warrant  no  stronger  conclusion. 
The  inference  may  be  no  broader  than  the  narrowest 
statement  contained  in  either  premise. 

To  appearances,  the  argument  comes  so  near  affirm- 
ing, abiogenesis  is  true  because  evolution  is  true,  and 
evolution  is  true  because  abiogenesis  is  true,  that  it 
might  legitimately  assume  the  following  form: — 

i.  Unless  abiogenesis  has  occurred,  evolution  cannot 
be  true; 

2.  "  There  is  no  shadow  of  trustworthy  direct  evidence 
that  abiogenesis  does  take  place,  or  has  taken  place,  with- 
in the  period  during  which  life  on  the  globe  is  recorded  "; 

Therefore,  There  is  no  trustworthy  direct  evidence 
that  evolution  does  take  place,  or  has  taken  place,  etc. 


ABIOGENESIS.  165 

If  evolution  is  at  liberty  to  draw  conclusions  suited  to 
its  demands,  why  may  not  its  opponents  do  so  also  ? 
Logic,  with  its  rules  in  reference  to  negative  premises, 
undistributed  middle,  illicit  process,  an  affirmative  con- 
clusion when  one  of  the  premises  is  negative,  a  universal 
conclusion  when  one  premise  is  particular,  etc.,  is  no 
more  binding  upon  opposers  of  evolution  than  upon 
evolutionists. 

The  argument  may  be  made  to  assume  form  as 
follows: — 

1.  If  evolution  is  true,  living  matter  must  have  arisen 
from  not-living  matter; 

2.  Evolution  is  true,  for  it  postulates  "  the  unlimited 
modifibility  of  living  matter"; 

Therefore,  Living  matter  has  arisen  by  spontaneous 
generation  from  inorganic  matter.  Has  the  "unlimited 
modifibility  of  such  matter"  been  proved  ? 

The  reasoning  might  assume  this  syllogistic  form: — 

1.  Whatever  postulates  "  the  unlimited  modifibility 
of  matter"  is  true; 

2.  Evolution  postulates  "the  unlimited  modifibility  of 
matter"; 

Therefore,  Evolution  is  true. 

i.  If  evolution  is  true,  abiogenesis  must  be  true; 

2.  Evolution  is  true; 

Therefore,  Abiogenesis  is  true. 

Presented  in  this  dress,  effort  might  have  been  con- 
centrated upon  the  establishment  of  the  first  premise  in 
each  syllogism. 

To  complete  the  reasoning  this  might  be  added: — 

1.  Whatever  the  theory  of  evolution  needs  for  its  es- 
tablishment must  have  occurred,  either  since  the  origin  of 
life  on  the  globe  or  antecedent  thereto; 

2.  Abiogenesis,  of  which  "  there  is  not  a  shadow  of 


166  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

trustworthy  direct  evidence  that  it  does  take  place,  or 
has  taken  place,  within  the  period  during  which  the  exist- 
ence of  life  on  the  globe  is  recorded,"  is  necessary  to  the 
establishment  of  the  theory  of  evolution; 

Therefore,  Abiogenesis  must  have  taken  place  prior  to 
"the  period  during  which  the  existence  of  life  on  the 
globe  is  recorded." 

If  we  have  failed  to  prove  that  the  not-living  gave  birth 
to  the  living,  or  if  we  have  tripped  in  our  effort  to  show 
that  this  miracle  occurred  ere  the  present  order  of  things 
was  introduced,  it  is  not  because  we  have  neglected  to 
place  the  argument  in  the  clearest  light  which  it  seems 
capable  of  enduring. 

Is  it  conceivable  that  a  living  organism,  the  primeval 
parent  of  all  other  organisms,  came  into  being  by  a 
fortuitous  aggregation  of  material  elements  ?  We  answer, 
No:  for  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  the  constituent 
elements  of  a  vegetable  or  animal  germ,  of  a  moneron  or 
a  lichen,  as  the  case  may  be,  could  have  come  together 
spontaneously.  Professor  Huxley  informs  us  that  "germs 
consist  of  at  fewest  four  elementary  bodies;  viz.,  carbon, 
hydrogen,  oxygen,  and  nitrogen,  united  in  the  ill-defined 
compound  known  as  proteine,  and  associated  with  much 
water  and  very  generally  with  sulphur  and  phosphorus 
in  minute  proportions."  Professor  Haeckel  assures  us 
that  the  moneron,  the  primitive  parent  of  the  entire 
animal  kingdom,  has  the  same  constituent  elements. 
Then  we  are  to  believe  that  these  several  material 
elements  came  together  "spontaneously,"  and  that  they 
came  together  in  precisely  the  requisite  proportions. 
Even  this,  however,  though  a  miracle,  would  not  account 
for  the  origin  of  life,  for  there  are  dead  monera  and  life- 
less germs.  It  has  not  been  shown  that  these  differ  in 
material   constitution   from  those  possessing  life.     It  is 


ABIOGENESIS.  167 

conceded  that  the  above-mentioned  material  elements 
may  combine  without  constituting  a  living  organism. 
Something  more  is  requisite, — life.  If,  with  the  view  of 
rendering  the  work  of  spontaneous  generation  as  easy  as 
possible,  we  regard  life  as  simply  a  particular  arrangement 
of  material  molecules  we  are  required  to  believe  that 
these  molecules  "spontaneously"  arranged  themselves 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  originate  life;  and  as  all  the  varied 
forms  of  life  must  be  due,  according  to  the  conditions 
of  this  hypothesis,  to  distinct  molecular  arrangements 
we  are  further  forced  to  believe  that  these  molecules 
so  arranged  themselves,  "spontaneously,"  as  to  originate 
the  lowest  imaginable  organism,  a  moneron,  a  lichen,  an 
animal  germ,  a  vegetable  germ,  or  a  germ  capable  of 
evolving  vegetable  and  animal  organisms.  Did  these 
three  things, — the  material  aggregation,  the  molecular 
arrangement  requisite  to  constitute  life,  and  the  specific 
arrangement  necessary  to  the  origination  of  "  the  lowest 
imaginable  organism" — concur  "spontaneously,"  being 
brought  about  concurrently  by  unknown  forces  inherent 
in  these  constituent  elements  ?  This  requires  a  large 
measure  of  credulity,  especially  as  science  is  vigorously 
asserting,  and  has  been  for  more  than  twenty  years,  that 
since  the  dawn  of  terrestrial  history  no  material  atom  has 
been  destroyed,  and  no  force  has  been  annihilated. 

And  yet,  strange  to  say,  it  is  frankly  conceded  that 
spontaneous  generation  does  not  now  occur,  cannot  now 
occur,  and  has  occurred  but  once.  Are  we  to  under- 
stand then  that  spontaneous  generation  is  causeless 
generation  ?  If  it  is  not  causeless,  why  has  it  oc- 
curred but  once  ?  The  cause  which  produced  it  that 
once  still  lives,  for  no  force  has  been  annihilated.  To 
say  that  it  was  causeless  would  be  unscientific.  To 
concede   that  we  are   to  understand  "  the  spontaneous 


168  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

origination  "  of  life  as  its  origination  through  unknown 
causes,  is  to  confess  carelessness  in  the  choice  of  language. 
Besides,  it  would  not  answer  the  purpose  of  atheistic 
evolution;  for  it  would  leave  its  advocates  liable  to  be 
inflicted  with  a  text  of  Scripture  from  the  mouth  of  some 
modern  Paul;  "The  unknown  God,  whom  ye  ignorantly 
worship,  Him  declare  I  unto  you." 

If  spontaneous  generation  is  inconceivable  even  on 
the  theory  that  life  is  merely  a  particular  molecular 
arrangement,  it  is  of  course  no  less  inconceivable  on 
any  higher  theory  of  life.  If  life  is  a  directing  agency 
capable  of  organizing  matter  into  a  living  structure,  then 
how  came  "  the  ill-defined  compound  known  as  proteine  " 
to  possess  this  directing  agency  ?  How  did  it  happen 
to  become  so  well  fitted  to  be  the  primeval  parent  of  all 
living  organisms  ?  Whence  came  this  directing  agency  ? 
Why  did  it  evolve  but  one  ancestral  form  ?  Was  it 
evolved  "  spontaneously  "  ?  Did  it  come  into  existence 
independently  of  the  material  elements  constituting  the 
body  of  the  first  living  organism  ?  If  it  did,  what 
produced  it,  and  what  associated  it  with  the  albuminous 
lump  ?  And  when  associated,  why  did  it  happen  to 
constitute  or  to  develop  into  a  homogeneous  atom  of 
plasson  ?  It  was  protoplasm,  and  protoplasm  can  develop 
into  an  elephant  or  a  cedar,  as  well  as  into  "  the  lowest 
imaginable  organism."  Did  the  undifferentiated  lump 
develop  a  directing  agency  through  forces  inherent  in 
itself? — and  is  it  enough  to  say  that  it  could  as  readily 
develop  the  directing  agency  characteristic  of  a  moneron 
or  a  lichen  as  it  could  develop  the  life-principle  of  a  tiger 
or  of  a  mammoth  pine  ?  But  some  cause  must  have  pro- 
duced the  specific  result.  That  cause,  or  combination  of 
causes,  must  have  been  different,  in  slight  measure  at 
least,  from  any  cause  or  combination  of  causes  which  was 


ABIOGENESIS.  169 

fitted  to  the  production  of  a  different  effect.  It  is 
unscientific  for  the  evolutionists  to  say  that  the  homo- 
geneous atom,  while  still  mere  matter,  can  and  must 
proceed  to  develop  the  life-principle,  unless  they  are 
prepared  to  tell  us  how  it  can  and  why  it  must.  In  what 
does  this  power  reside  ?  What  necessity  impels  this 
spontaneous  generation  ?  Those  who  persist  in  denounc- 
ing the  hypothesis  of  an  uncreated  First  Cause,  do  not 
expect  us  to  believe  that  this  effect  has  no  cause. 

Again:  if  we  are  to  view  life  as  an  intangible,  imma- 
terial entity,  a  substance  though  not  matter,  then  we 
are  forced  to  inquire  whether  it  originated  simultaneously 
with  the  aggregated  material  elements  of  the  creature's 
minute  body  or  came  into  being  independent  of  it.  In  the 
former  case  there  must  have  been  two  acts  of  spontaneity; 
in  the  latter  case  there  must  have  been  three, — the  gener- 
ation of  the  material  in  proper  proportions,  the  genera- 
tion of  the  immaterial  entity,  and  the  union  of  the  two. 
It  thus  becomes  evident  that  spontaneous  generation  is 
inexplicable  whatever  we  may  choose  to  regard  life, 
whether  as  molecular  arrangement,  an  organizing  prin- 
ciple, or  an  entitive  substance.  In  every  conceivable  as- 
pect of  the  case  it  is  a  mindless,  willess,  blind,  groping 
nondescript,  with  no  powers  at  its  command;  and  yet  it 
is  supposed  to  have  produced  a  result  in  comparison  with 
which  the  results  of  human  intelligence  seem  destitute 
of  design. 

It  may  perhaps  be  said  that  injustice  is  done  to  the 
theory  in  question  by  assuming  that  the  term  "  sponta- 
neous," as  employed  in  this  connection,  maybe  interpreted 
as  meaning  causeless.  We  candidly  concede  that  this 
is  neither  its  etymological  nor  its  commonly  accepted 
meaning,  and  yet,  if  life  is  the  "  spontaneous  "  result  of 
the  internal  forces  of  nature,  unassisted   by  any  extra- 


170  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

mundane  force,  it  is  remarkable  that  it  has  not  occurred 
during  man's  history,  and  cannot  be  produced  in  the  lab- 
oratory. If  it  occurred  but  once,  and  occurred  without 
the  intervention  of  a  Personal  Will,  it  would  seem  as  if  it 
must  have  been  causeless.  What  unassisted  nature  has 
done  once,  it  can  do  again,  for  its  internal  impulses  re- 
main unchanged.  What  it  does  once,  it  generally  does 
quite  frequently,  for  the  causes  which  combine  to  produce 
one  effect  are  likely  to  combine  in  the  production  of  other 
similar  effects.  What  force  of  nature,  or  what  concur- 
rence of  forces,  can  be  shown  to  have  operated  once  and 
then  lapsed  into  perpetual  quiescence  ?  Certainly  the 
term  "  spontaneous,"  as  ordinarily  employed,  does  not 
bear  this  meaning.  Spontaneous  combustion  does  not 
mean  combustion  which  has  occurred  but  once  and  "  can 
never  occur  again."  Such  combustion  we  should  be  dis- 
posed to  denominate  "  causeless  "  ;  for  if  it  were  not,  but 
was  effected  by  agencies  resident  in  nature,  it  might 
occur  again.  The  causes  which  produced  it,  however 
complicated,  and  though  undiscoverable  by  man,  might 
come  into  operation  a  second  time  during  the  lapse  of 
hundreds  of  millions  of  years.  But  we  are  told  that 
spontaneous  generation  has  occurred  but  once,  and  can 
never  occur  again.  Then  life  is  the  result  of  a  blunder 
on  the  part  of  nature;  and  yet  all  nature  is  fitted  to  it, 
and  it  is  fitted  to  nature.  If  then  spontaneous  gener- 
ation is  an  act  incapable  of  repetition,  is  it  unreason- 
able to  recommend  the  substitution  of  "causeless"  for 
11  spontaneous  "  ? 

Are  we  then  to  understand  that  the  term  "  sponta- 
neous "  is  employed  because  the  first  living  organism  orig- 
inated in  unknown  causes  ?  Were  its  material  elements 
brought  together  in  proper  proportions  by  some  undis- 
coverable force  or  forces  ?     Was  the  "  albuminous  lump  " 


ABIOGENESIS.  171 

subjected  to  the  influence  of  heat,  electricity,  light,  mag- 
netism, chemical  affinity  ?  Were  all  changes  affected  by 
external  agencies  ?  Was  light,  acting  upon  the  homo- 
geneous protoplasm,  converted  by  absorption  into  heat, 
which  in  turn  produced  electricity,  magnetism,  chemical 
affinity,  motion — all  the  forces  of  nature,  any  one  being 
convertible  into  any  other  ?  It  is  perhaps  said  that  these 
agencies  may  have  originated  the  first  living  organism, 
either  a  plant  or  an  animal;  and  that  we  may  properly 
designate  the  process  "  spontaneous "  because  we  are 
unable  to  determine  which  was  the  initial  energy,  into 
what  it  was  subsequently  transmuted,  what  potency  be- 
longed to  the  several  co-operating  agencies,  and  whether 
they  could  ever  again  combine  to  produce  a  similar 
result. 

If  we  are  asked  to  view  the  case  in  this  light,  we  may 
pertinently  inquire  whether  it  is  not  improbable  that  these 
energies  should  have  chanced  to  operate  once  in  the  pro- 
duction of  an  effect  which  is  without  a  parallel  ?  Against 
the  assumption  that  they  so  combined  we  have  the  un- 
broken testimony  of  the  ages.  The  laws  of  nature,  which 
are  uniform  in  their  operation,  have  persistently  refused 
to  repeat  the  process.  Nor  have  we  any  human  testimony, 
that  vivum  ex  vivo  est  is  not  a  law  of  the  universe,  one 
which  has  never  been  violated.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  any  animal  originated  from  inorganic  nature,  either 
"causeless,"  or  from  the  operation  of  causes  inherent  in 
matter.  There  is  unvarying  testimony  extending  through 
millions  of  years,  that  life  has  invariably  originated  in  an 
antecedent  individual  life.  Why,  then,  should  some 
scientists,  while  rejecting  miracles  and  assuring  us  that 
they  are  at  variance  with  the  uniform  testimony  of  ex- 
perience, still  persist  in  asking  us  to  believe  the  most 
stupendous  miracle  ever  presented  for  man's  acceptance? 


172  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

They  request  us  to  believe,  without  any  evidence  what- 
ever, that  life  originated  spontaneously. 

If  no  evidence  is  presented  that  spontaneous  generation 
has  ever  taken  place;  if  it  has  not  occurred  since  man's 
advent  upon  earth;  if  for  untold  millions  of  years  the 
forces  of  nature  have  been  operating  in  undisturbed  po- 
tency over  extensive  areas  without  leaving  any  evidence 
whatever  which  tends  to  confirm  the  conjecture  that  the 
living  may  have  arisen  from  the  not-living;  if  no  one  is 
able  to  prove  that  unassisted  nature  possesses  powers 
adequate  to  the  task  of  originating  life;  if  no  scientist  is 
able  to  say,  "I  saw  a  cytod  which  never  had  an  ances- 
tor,"— then  why  should  we  be  expected  to  believe  a  mir- 
acle which  is  as  much  less  credible  than  those  of  Scripture 
as  the  baseless  hypothesis  that  the  earth  rests  upon  a 
huge  serpent  is  less  credible  than  the  theory  which  has 
displaced  it  ? 

The  improbability  that  life  had  its  origin  in  sponta- 
neous generation  is  greatly  increased  by  the  fact  that 
scientists,  though  striving  earnestly  for  years,  have  failed 
in  producing  it  from  inorganic  matter,  or  even  from  or- 
ganic substances  which  have  been  subjected  to  sufficient 
heat  to  destroy  all  the  germs.  If  life  is  a  particular  ar- 
rangement of  the  molecules  of  ordinary  matter — indeed, 
whatever  it  may  be,  if  it  has  come  and  consequently  can 
come  into  being  "spontaneously" — scientists  ought  long 
since  to  have  presented  us  with  at  least  one  throbbing 
moneron,  one  living  germ,  one  little  lump  of  palpitating 
proteine,  one  quickened  atom  of  plasson,  the  production 
of  the  chemical  laboratory.  Chemistry  has  no  living 
children.  Strange!  Let  them  originate  a  living  mon- 
eron, "the  lowest  imaginable  organism"  (except  the 
cytod,  which  is  "lower"  than  the  lowest),  and  they 
will   accomplish  more  towards  the  acceptance  of  their 


ABIOGENESIS.  173 

theory  than  by  voluminous,  unsatisfactory,  and  confusing 
reasoning.* 

The  extent  to  which  meats  and  vegetables  are 
preserved  by  the  process  of  "  canning  "  is  satisfactory 
evidence  that  those  experimenters  are  mistaken  who 
imagine  that  they  have  discovered  bacteria  in  flasks 
which,  containing  organic  substances,  have  been  suffi- 
ciently heated  to  destroy  all  germ-life  and  subsequently 
rendered  air-tight  and  allowed  to  remain  a  few  days. 
Either  the  heat  must  have  been  insufficient  to  destroy 
germs  of  bacteria,  or  there  were  no  bacteria  when  the 
flasks  were  opened,  or  they  came  from  the  enveloping 
atmosphere  as  the  contents  of  the  flasks  were  under  ex- 
amination. If  bacteria,  or  indeed  any  other  form  of  either 
vegetable  or  animal  life,  can  originate  where  no  living 
germs  exist,  why  are  meats,  fruits,  and  vegetables  pre- 
served by  "canning  "  ?  The  presence  of  life  in  these  cans 
would  cause  decomposition,  the  contents  becomingvalue- 
less.     All  germs  are  either  expelled  by  driving  out  the 

*  H.  Charlton  Bastian,  M.  D.,  F.  R.  S.,  made  the  following  experiment: — A 
strong  solution  of  turnip  was  rendered  faintly  alkaline:  to  this  was  added  a  few 
muscular  fibers  of  cod-fish.  The  mixture  was  then  put  into  a  flask,  the  neck 
of  which  was  hermetically  sealed  by  a  blow-pipe  flame  while  the  contents  were 
at  the  boiling  point.  It  was  subsequently  introduced  into  a  digester  which  was 
gradually  heated  to  a  temperature  of  from  270  degrees  to  275  degrees  F.,  and 
kept  at  the  same  degree  of  heat  for  twenty  minutes.  The  flask,  when  drawn 
from  the  digester,  was  kept  for  eight  weeks  at  a  temperature  of  from  70 
degrees  to  80  degrees  F.  When  opened,  it  was  found  to  contain  bacteria  of 
most  diverse  shapes  and  sizes — also  nucleated  spire-like  bodies.  A  similar  ex- 
periment with  common  cress  yielded  minute  and  delicate  protomcebae  varying  in 
size  and  creeping  with  moderately  rapid  slug-like  movements — also  bacteria,  pro- 
toplasm, motionless  and  tailless  sperules  of  different  sizes,  and  active  monads  of 
one-four-thousandth  of  an  inch  in  diameter.  It  should  be  noted  that  organic 
matter  was  employed,  not  inorganic;  nor  has  it  been  conclusively  proved  that  the 
amount  of  heat,  great  as  it  was,  to  which  the  mixture  was  subjected,  is  de- 
structive of  all  living  organisms.  The  experiments,  it  is  conceded,  were 
inconclusive. 


174  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

air,  or  they  are  destroyed.  Consequently,  the  contents 
are  preserved.  If  lower  forms  of  life  could  originate 
"spontaneously"  in  the  air-tight  vessel,  its  contents 
would  be  rendered  worthless.  Some  cans  "  spoil,"  it  is 
true;  but  this,  as  is  well  known,  is  due  either  to  imper- 
fect sealing,  to  air  left  in  the  cans  at  the  time  they 
are  closed,  or  to  insufficient  heat  in  the  process  of 
preparation. 

It  is  not  possible  to  attribute  the  preservation  of  the 
contents  of  properly  sealed  and  well-boiled  cans  to  the 
exclusion  of  oxygen,  for  it  has  been  proved  that  the  pre- 
sence of  oxygen  is  not  necessary  for  either  fermentation 
or  putrefaction.  .  It  cannot  be  attributed  to  the  fact  that 
the  contents  were  well  boiled,  for  boiled  fruits,  meats, 
and  vegetables  are  fermentable  and  putrescible.  Nor 
is  their  preservation  due  to  the  exclusion  of  air,  for 
these  substances  can  ferment  in  vacuo.  It  cannot  be 
said  that  bacteria  fail  to  manifest  their  presence  simply 
because  there  is  no  air  in  which  they  may  live,  for 
bacteria  can  live  without  air.  What  reason,  then,  can 
be  assigned  except  the  expulsion  or  destruction  of 
germs  ? 

The  proposition  that  living  matter  may  arise  from 
that  which  has  no  life — "  abiogenesis" — has  not  been 
proved.  The  dictum  of  Redi:  "  omne  vivum  ex  vivo," 
"  all  life  from  pre-existing  life" — "  biogenesis" — is  still 
entitled  to  respect.  Until  it  has  been  proved  that  in 
one  instance  at  least  life  has  originated  without  the 
agency  of  pre-existing  life  it  is  premature,  and  unscien- 
tific, to  regard  spontaneous  generation  as  anything  else 
than  a  baseless  speculation. 

That  under  the  manipulations  of  the  most  eminent 
chemists,  as  Buffon,  Needham,  and  Bastian,  it  has  not 
been  proved  that  life  may,  or  has,  proceeded  from  lifeless 


ABIOGENESIS.  175 

matter,  is  frankly  conceded  by  Mr.  Huxley.  Buffon  and 
Needham  maintained  that  in  beef  and  hay,  both  dead 
matter,  there  were  "  organic  molecules "  which  were 
capable  of  originating  life  if  subjected  to  the  influence  of 
water.  These  molecules,  having  the  property  of  life  and 
existing  in  all  living  things,  and  possessing  energies  dis- 
tinguishing them  from  dead  matter,  were  supposed  to  be 
equal  to  the  task  of  producing  animalcules,  i.  e.,  life  under 
new  forms,  xenogenesis.  Certainly  such  living  things 
exist  in  decaying  animal  and  vegetable  substances. 
They  are  also  exceedingly  small,  the  diameter  of  some 
being  not  more  than  40000  of  an  inch.  What  is  their 
origin?  Spallanzani  triumphantly  proved  that  if  these 
substances  were  sufficiently  heated  and  the  air  success- 
fully excluded,  no  animalcules  made  their  appearance. 
It  was  then  imagined  that  the  action  of  oxygen  on  these 
"organic  molecules  "  was  necessary  to  develop  vitality. 
This  theory  shared  the  fate  of  its  predecessor.  It  was 
found  that  air  which  had  been  passed  through  red-hot 
glass  tubes — its  quality  remaining  unchanged  though  the 
living  germs  it  contained  were  destroyed — might  come  in 
contact  with  dead  organic  matter  for  an  indefinite  pe- 
riod of  time  and  no  living  thing  resulted.  The  same  result 
has  attended  the  various  experiments  made  with  air  which 
has  been  strained  through  cotton-wool.  If  the  mouth 
of  the  vessel,  which  contains  an  infusion  fitted  for  the 
development  of  living  things,  is  closed  with  cotton-wool 
while  heated,  no  life  manifests  itself.  Indeed,  the  mouth 
may  be  left  open,  if  the  neck  of  the  flask  is  long  and 
turned  downwards.  The  germs  of  life,  of  which  the  air  is 
full,  cannot  fall  upwards. 

Mr.  Huxley's  summary  of  the  result  of  the  many  experi- 
ments made  with  a  view  of  solving  the  question  of  abio- 
genesis  is  as  follows: — 


176  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

"  It  is  demonstrable  that  a  fluid  eminently  fit  for  the  development  of  the 
lowest  forms  of  life,  but  which  contains  neither  germs  nor  any  proteine  compound, 
gives  rise  to  living  things  in  great  abundance  if  it  is  exposed  to  ordinary  air, 
while  no  such  development  takes  place  if  the  air  with  which  it  is  in  contact  is 
mechanically  freed  from  the  solid  particles  which  ordinarily  float  in  it  and  which 
may  be  made  visible  by  appropriate  means." 

"  It  is  demonstrable  that  inoculation  of  the  experimental  fluid  with  a  drop 
of  liquid  known  to  contain  living  particles  gives  rise  to  the  same  phenomena 
as  exposure  to  unpurified  air." 

"  It  is  further  certain  that  these  living  particles  are  so  minute  that  the  assump. 
tion  of  their  suspension  in  ordinary  air  presents  not  the  slightest  difficulty." 

"  Thus  the  evidence,  direct  and  indirect,  in  favor  of  biogenesis,  for  all  known 
forms  of  life,  must,  I  think,  be  admitted  to  be  of  great  weight." 

"  If  the  results  of  the  experiments  I  refer  to  [hermetically  sealed  fluids,  after 
exposure  to  heat,  yielding  living  forms  of  organization]  are  really  trustworthy, 
it  by  no  means  follows  that  abiogenesis  [life  without  the  agency  of  pre-existing 
life]  has  taken  place.  •  The  resistance  of  living  matter  to  heat  is  known  to  vary 
within  considerable  limits,  and  to  depend,  to  some  extent,  upon  the  chemical  and 
physical  qualities  of  the  surrounding  medium.  But,  if,  in  the  present  state  of 
science,  the  alternative  is  offered  us,  either  germs  can  stand  a  greater  heat  than 
has  been  supposed,  or  the  molecules  of  dead  matter,  for  no  valid  or  intelligible 
reason  that  is  assigned,  are  able  to  rearrange  themselves  into  living  bodies, 
exactly  such  as  can  be  demonstrated  to  be  frequently  produced  in  another  way, 
I  cannot  understand  how  choice  can  be,  even  for  a  moment,  doubtful." 

"  I  see  no  reason  for  believing  that  the  feat  [the  production  of  life  from  not- 
living  matter]  has  been  performed  yet." 

"  The  doctrine  of  biogenesis  \omne  vivum  ex  vivo]  appears  to  me  ...  to 
be  victorious  along  the  whole  line  at  the  present  day." — Lay  Sermons,  pp.  363, 
364,  365,  366,  367. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  we  ought  not  to  conclude  that 
spontaneous  generation  was  impossible  in  former  times, 
because  it  is  apparently  impossible  now.  We  are  told 
that  there  were  causes  in  operation  then  which  do  not 
exist  now. 

We  answer:  It  is  a  purely  gratuitous  assumption  that 
at  the  dawn  of  life  upon  the  earth  forces  were  operative 
that  have  since  been  either  annihilated  or  rendered  less 
potent.  Nature  is  uniform.  Her  laws  are  the  same  in  all 
eras.     We  are  assured  by  scientists  that  no  force  has  been 


ABIOGENESIS.  177 

annihilated,  or  indeed  can  be.  If  energies  existed  an- 
ciently which  have  ceased  to  operate  since,  evolutionists, 
we  presume,  ought  to  be  able  to  determine  their  nature, 
in  measure  at  least,  by  an  examination  of  those  still 
existing,  which,  if  evolution  is  what  it  is  represented  to 
be,  must  have  been  evolved  from  those  which  have 
perished.  Forces,  it  is  true,  are  convertible;  but  they 
are  not  destructible.  Consequently,  if  any  existed  an- 
ciently which  do  not  exist  now,  they  must  have  disap- 
peared through  transformation.  Accordingly,  those  who 
are  able  to  trace  man  back  to  the  moneron  ought  to  be 
able  to  trace  the  genealogy  of  existing  forces,  and  to 
explain  why,  contrary  to  the  analogy  of  the  vegetable  and 
the  animal  kingdom,  there  has  been  degeneracy  instead 
of  improvement.  Why  have  physical  causes  become  less 
potent  by  the  lapse  of  time,  whilst  vital  causes  have 
greatly  increased  in  power  ?  Why  did  the  moneron  go 
on  improving  till  man  was  evolved,  whilst  the  agency 
or  agencies  which  originated  it  have  so  far  deteriorated 
that  they  are  unequal  to  the  task  of  producing  a  second 
"homogeneous  atom  of  plasson  "  ? 

Are  light,  heat,  electricity,  magnetism,  and  chemical 
affinity  lineal  descendants  of  forces  that  have  passed 
away  ?  Was  there  originally  but  one  force,  motion,  as 
there  was  but  one  animal,  the  little  "  organless  organ- 
ization "  ?  Were  all  potencies  but  modes  of  operation  of 
this  one  force  ?  Was  this  one  energy  more  potent  an- 
ciently than  at  present  ?  No:  for  we  are  assured  that 
force  cannot  be  annihilated;  and  its  diminution  ought  to 
be  regarded  as  a  partial  destruction.  If  it  is  said  that  a 
particular  energy  may  be  diminished  without  the  annihi- 
lation of  the  part  that  disappeared,  we  answer,  Certainly, 
for  it  may  assume  a  new  form.  There  is  no  less  force  in 
the  world  on  that  account.     When  motion  is  diminished 


178  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

by  friction,  heat  is  increased  to  an  extent  which  may  be 
measured  by  the  amount  of  motion  lost.  Light  may 
be  converted  by  absorption  into  heat.  Electricity  may  be 
transformed  into  magnetism,  etc.  But  if  the  sum-total 
of  the  forces  operating  in  nature  has  been  diminished 
since  the  dawn  of  life,  there  has  been  an  annihilation  of 
force,  which  science  has  pronounced  a  thing  impossible. 

It  is  safe  to  affirm  that  the  preponderance  of  testi- 
mony is  in  favor  of  the  theory  that  the  forces  now  oper- 
ative in  nature  are  as  potent  as  those  which  operated 
millions  of  years  before  the  molecules  of  matter  assumed 
that  peculiar  arrangement  which  resulted  in  the  gradual 
evolution  of  '*  evolution  "  ;  as  potential  as  those  which 
ruled  the  universe  at  the  time  this  "  albuminous  atom  " 
leaped  into  life.  It  is  perhaps  said  that  forces  existent 
now  may  have  operated  anciently  under  modes  unknown 
at  present,  or  may  have  constituted  a  single  force,  or  may 
have  combined  as  they  combine  no  longer.  Such  con- 
jectures are  possible,  it  is  true;  and  effects  diverse  from 
those  witnessed  now  may  have  resulted:  but  it  has  not 
been  proved  that  the  physical  forces  are  independent 
concomitants  of  matter;  that,  given  the  existence  of  the 
latter,  the  former  could  have  been  different  from  what 
they  are;  that  animate  and  inanimate  nature  may  be  in- 
fluenced by  agencies  not  now  in  existence.  It  has  not 
been  shown  that  conditions  existed  in  ancient  times  more 
favorable  to  the  origination  of  life,  nor  that  matter  then 
possessed  powers  which  have  since  been  lost.  The  earth, 
it  is  true,  formerly  existed  under  conditions  different  from 
those  which  prevail  now.  Cosmical  causes  have  pro- 
duced cosmical  changes.  These,  however,  are  supposed 
to  be  confined  to  a  succession  of  tropical  and  glacial 
eras — more  anciently  "  to  a  continued  diminution  of  heat." 
Neither    heat  nor  cold,  however,  has  aided  abiogenists 


ABIOGENESIS.  179 

in  originating-  life.     Life  is  from  pre-existing  life — such  is 
the  testimony  of  science. 

Professor  Haeckel,  apparently  with  the  view  of  render- 
ing it  easier  to  accept  the  theory  that  life  originated  in 
spontaneous  generation,  assures  us  that, — 

11  We  can  even  positively  and  with  full  assurance  maintain  that  the  conditions 
of  life  in  primeval  times  must  have  been  entirely  different  from  those  of  the  present 
time.  .  .  .  How  can  we  know  that  in  remote  primeval  times  there  did  not 
exist  conditions  quite  different  from  those  at  present  obtaining,  and  which  may 
have  rendered  spontaneous  generation  possible?  " — History  of  Creation,  vol. 
i.  pp.  341,  342. 

If  "  the  conditions  were  entirely  different  from  those 
of  the  present  time,"  then  the  living  things  which 
existed  must  have  been  entirely  different  from  those 
which  have  existed  since,  for,  as  is  conceded,  very  slight 
changes  would  suffice  to  destroy  all  the  life  at  present 
upon  the  earth.  Were  the  conditions  of  life,  at  the  time 
the  moneron  leaped  into  being  by  spontaneous  generation, 
11  entirely  different  from  those  of  the  present  time  "  ?  No: 
for  Professor  Haeckel  obtained  monera,  lineal  descend- 
ants of  the  "  primeval  parent  of  all  living  organisms." 
The  conditions  of  life,  therefore,  cannot  now  be"  entirely 
different  "  from  those  which  prevailed  in  primeval  times, 
but  must  be,  if  not  "  entirely,"  then  at  least  essentially, 
the  same.  Darwin  affirms,  "  Some  groups  [of  mollusks] 
....  have  endured  from  the  earliest  known  dawn  of  life 
to  the  present  day." — Origin  of  Species,  p.  239. 

What,  then,  becomes  of  this  assumption  that  the  con- 
ditions of  life  have  greatly  changed  since  primeval  pe- 
riods ?  Suppose  we  concede  that  in  primeval  eras  the 
condition  of  the  world  was  very  different  from  what  it 
now  is,  and  that  it  can  be  shown  that  animate  organisms 
lived  under  conditions  exceedingly  diverse  from  those 
prevailing  now — a  difficult  thing  to  do, — still  it  remains 


180  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

to  prove  that  the  life  which  then  existed  was  capable  of 
perpetuating  itself,  under  incessantly  varying  conditions, 
through  an  almost  infinite  series  of  changes  down  to  the 
present,  and  actually  so  perpetuated  itself.  Unless  this 
is  done  no  scientific  explanation  of  life  as  it  now  exists 
on  the  globe  has  been  furnished. 

But  Professor  Haeckel,  hoping  to  aid  us  in  deeming 
spontaneous  generation  credible,  proffers  this  advice: — 

"  Think  of  the  enormous  masses  of  carbon  which  we  now  find  deposited  in 
the  primary  coal  mountains  ...  At  that  time,  under  conditions  quite  different 
from  those  of  to-day,  a  spontaneous  generation,  which  now  is  perhaps  no  longer 
possible,  may  have  taken  place." 

Yes,  we  think  of  the  carboniferous  period;  and  we 
think  it  existed  millions  of  years  subsequent  to  the 
assumed  origin  of  life  by  spontaneous  generation.  Con- 
sequently, we  think  that  carbon,  at  least  the  carbon 
whose  "  enormous  masses  we  now  find  deposited  in 
mountains,"  could  not  have  been  the  agency  through 
which  the  primeval  moneron  acquired  vitality.  We  even 
think  that  upon  reflection  Professor  Haeckel  himself 
thinks  so,  certainly  he  informs  us  that  "  the  era  of  the 
tangled  forests  comprises  the  immense  period  from  the 
first  spontaneous  generation  ...  to  the  end  of  the  Silu- 
rian system  of  deposits."  This,  which  he  pronounces 
"  an  immeasurable  space  of  time,"  "  much  longer  than  all 
the  other  four  epochs  taken  together,"  actually  elasped 
ere  the  carbon  age  began.  We  think  his  advice  does  not 
aid  us  in  accepting  his  theory. 

He  also  affirms,  what  we  are  prepared  to  concede,  that 
11  the  impossibility  of  such  a  process  [spontaneous  gener- 
ation] can,  in  fact,  never  be  proved."  We  also  can  make 
statements,  and  devise  theories,  and  indulge  in  specula- 
tions, and  construct  hypotheses,  "  the  impossibility  of 
which  can,  in  fact,  never  be  proved."     We  assert:  God 


ABIOGENESIS.  181 

created  the  first  moneron.  No  one  can  prove  "  the  impos- 
sibility of  such  a  process."  We  offer  a  new  theory:  The 
first  moneron  was  the  deteriorated  descendant  of  a  fallen 
archangel,  who,  after  his  lapse  into  moral  sin,  was  forced 
by  the  inexorable  laws  of  nature  to  evolve  downward  till 
he  could  degenerate  no  further  without  suffering  annihi- 
lation; thenceforth,  he  was  permitted  to  evolve  upward, 
and,  having  already  succeeded  in  reaching  the  estate  of 
man,  is  inspired  with  the  hope  that  after  millenniums  of 
ages  he  may  recover  his  primeval  glory.  "The  impos- 
sibility of  such  a  process  can,  in  fact,  never  be  proved." 
We  can  even  speculate  in  reference  to  the  moneron, 
whose  existence  has  so  troubled  scientists.  It  was  let 
down  to  the  earth  from  the  moon  by  a  spider's  web,  at  a 
time  when  the  conditions  of  life  and  the  laws  of  gravi- 
tation were  "entirely  different"  from  what  they  now  are. 
"At  that  time,"  this  spontaneous  descent,  "which  is 
now  perhaps  no  longer  possible,  may  have  taken  place." 
Can  an  evolutionist  prove  the  impossibility  of  such  a 
process.  Our  hypothesis  is  that  some  abiogenists  have 
been  dealing  so  long  with  minute  forms  of  life,  and  have 
become  so  desirous  of  proving  that  "  the  lowest  imag- 
inable organism "  evolved  spontaneously  from  lifeless 
matter,  that  the  smallest  argument  assumes  importance 
under  their  microscopic  inspection. 

If  it  shall  be  proved  that  abiogenesis  is  credible,  it  will 
still  be  competent  for  the  teleologist  to  affirm:  God  is 
not  eliminated  from  the  problem.  Until  it  is  shown  that 
the  molecular  arrangement  constituting  life  is  not  an 
expression  of  the  Divine  will,  ample  basis  remains  for  the 
assertion:  Its  origination  in  this  way  may  have  been  a 
part  of  the  original  plan.  Atheism  will  find  it  difficult  to 
substantiate  its  oft  repeated  claim. 

Evolutionists  have  made  some  damaging  admissions: — 


182  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Prof.  W.  Stanley  Jevons  has  said: 

"I  cannot  for  a  moment  admit  that  the  theory  of  evolution  will  alter  our 
theological  ideas.  ...  I  believe  that  the  eye  was  gradually  developed;  hut  the 
ultimate  result  must  have  been  contained  in  the  aggregate  of  causes;  and  these, 
as  far  as  we  can  see,  were  subject  to  the  arbitrary  choice  of  the  Creator." — 
Principles  of  Science,  vol.  ii.  pp.  461,  462. 

Prof.  Haeckel  acknowledges: 

"  Most  naturalists  of  the  present  day  are  inclined  to  give  up  the  attempt  at 
explanation  of  the  genesis  of  life,  and  take  refuge  in  the  miracle  of  inconceivable 
creation." — History  of  Creation,  vol.  i.  p.  327. 

Again: 

"The  theory  that  man  has  developed  out  of  lower,  and  in  the  first  place 
out  of  ape-like  animals,  is  a  deductive  law." — History  of  Creation,  vol.  ii.  p.  357. 

So  also  is  the  theory  that  he  has  developed  from  inert 
matter  by  spontaneity.  This  age,  however,  demands  a 
careful  generalization  from  well  ascertained  facts,  and  will 
not  be  satisfied  with  an  endeavor  to  determine  facts, 
especially  in  the  domain  of  science,  by  an  a  priori  process 
of  reasoning. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  Prof.  Huxley  concedes: 

"  If  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  is  true,  living  matter  must  have  arisen  from 
not-living  matter." 

Spontaneous  generation  must  have  occurred,  therefore, 
or  evolution  is  a  baseless  fabric. 
But  he  frankly  admits: 

"  The  present  stale  of  knowledge  furnishes  us  with  no  link  between  the  living 
and  the  not-living,  .  .  .  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  trustworthy  direct  evidence 
that  abiogenesis  does  take  place,  or  has  taken  place,  within  the  period  during 
which  the  existence  of  life  on  the  globe  is  recorded." 

Then  the  theory  of  evolution  rests  on  an  insecure 
foundation. 

We  close  with  two  brief  quotations: — 
Prof.  Joseph  Cook  says  very  justly: 


ABIOGENESTS.  183 

"  The  chasm  between  the  not-living  and  the  living  forms  of  matter  is  the 
fathomless  abyss  at  the  rugged  edge  of  which  every  traveler  on  atheistic  01 
agnostic  roads  at  last  lifts  his  foot  over  thin  air. "  —  Biology,  p.  41. 

Prof.  Heinrich  Frey  says: 

11  A  deep  abyss  separates  the  inorganic  from  the  organic,  the  inanimate  from 
the  animate  ...  Is  it  possible,  then,  to  bridge  over  this  gulf?  We  answer: 
No,  at  the  present  time." 


CHAPTER  XI. 

MATTER;  ITS  ESSENCE. 

Having  aided  the  reader,  as  is  hoped,  in  entertaining 
the  conviction  that  the  origin  of  man,  of  plants,  and 
of  animals,  necessitates  belief  in  the  existence  of  an 
Intelligent  First  Cause — even  though  one  concedes 
that  evolution  may  have  taken  place  in  these  three 
provinces — we  enter  upon  a  more  extended  theme: 
Matter;  its  essence,  its  properties,  its  forms,  its  changes, 
its  origin. 

It  is  known  that  advanced  advocates  of  evolution  are 
not  content  with  confining  its  operations  to  the  vegetal 
and  animal  kingdoms.  They  assert  that  it  explains 
changes  in  the  material  universe;  indeed,  those  evolu- 
tionists who  are  materialists  insist  that  all  the  changes 
which  take  place  in  the  two  kingdoms  of  life  are  due 
to  purely  physical  causes.  Evolution  is  exalted  to  the 
throne  of  the  cosmos,  and  is  not  recognized  as  an  agency 
in  the  hand  of  an  Intelligent  Personality.  Consequently, 
in  order  to  lay  a  foundation  for  the  belief  that  "  In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,"  and 
that  "  In  Him  we  live,  move,  and  have  being,"  it  is 
necessary  to  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  the  problems 
imprisoned  in  the  term  matter.  To  a  consideration  of 
these  we  invite  the  reader  in  this  chapter  and  in  the 
three  succeeding  chapters. 

The    human  mind,  from  time  immemorial,  has  been 


MATTER;    ITS    ESSENCE.  185 

engaged  in  endeavoring  to  solve  the  mysteries  connected 
with  matter,  force,  life,  mind,  and  spirit.  It  would  be 
presumption  to  affirm  that  success  has  rewarded  these 
labors;  and  scarcely  less  presumptuous  to  predict  that  a 
solution  of  these  tantalizing  enigmas  will  be  furnished 
ere  long.  On  the  other  hand,  to  deny  that  progress  has 
been  made,  or  to  question  whether  the  knowledge  we 
now  'possess  is  either  more  accurate  or  more  firmly 
established  than  that  of  former  times,  is  to  confess 
culpable  ignorance.  In  solving  the  perplexing  problems, 
the  human  intellect  has  made  advances,  especially  in 
the  last  fifty  years.  Secrets,  which  since  the  dawn  of 
time  have  lain  concealed  within  the  recesses  of  nature, 
have  been  wrested  from  her  grasp  and  made  subservient 
to  the  interests  of  humanity.  Many  problems  bequeathed 
to  us  by  buried  generations  have  been  solved.  Not  all 
have,  however;  and  it  is  our  present  purpose  to  enum- 
erate some  of  the  unsolved,  and  possibly  insolvable, 
mysteries  which  environ  us.  We  confine  ourselves,  in 
this  and  the  four  succeeding  chapters,  to  the  difficulties — ■ 
and  of  these  the  more  superficial — which  are  imprisoned 
in  the  terms  matter,  force,  motion,  life,  mind,  spirit, 
personality,  space,  time,  etc. 

MATTER. 

What  is  matter  ?  This  question  has  received  no 
satisfactory  answer,  and  probably  never  will.  Appar- 
ently, no  adequate  answer  is  possible.  We  may  con- 
ceive of  it  as  an  indefinable  something  in  which  a  certain 
set  of  qualities  inhere,  and  may  designate  that  some- 
thing as  an  essence  having  a  probable  existence;  but 
scientists  do  not  pretend  to  understand  this  essence,  nor 
do   they   claim   that    it   has   been,    or   can   be,   defined 


186  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Although  quite  unanimous  in  the  opinion  that  there  must 
be  a  basis  in  which  the  properties  inhere — matter  being 
something  more  than  an  aggregation  of  attributes — 
they  are  nevertheless  forced  to  satisfy  themselves  with 
a  knowledge  of  its  qualities,  if  indeed,  they  are  able 
to  determine  these  with  certainty,  or  to  say  which  are 
essential  to  our  conception  of  matter,  and  which  are  only 
its  ordinary  concomitants. 

It  is  common  to  regard  matter  as  that  which  af- 
fects the  senses.  Ganot,  in  his  Elementary  Treatise  on 
Physics,  defines  it — if  it  be  a  definition — as  "  That 
which  possesses  the  properties  whose  existence  is  re- 
vealed to  us  by  our  senses."  This,  as  a  phrase  intended 
to  be  descriptive  of  matter  (certainly  it  is  not  a  logical 
definition),  is  not  only  exceedingly  defective, but  is  fitted 
to  produce  mistaken  conceptions.  It  would  seem  as  if 
he  intended  us  to  understand  that  matter  neither  does, 
nor  can,  reveal  its  presence  to  us.  It  can  reveal  its 
properties  to  us,  not  itself.  Its  own  existence,  then,  is  a 
mere  inference — a  deduction  drawn  from  the  innate 
conviction  that  the  existence  of  attributes  implies  the 
existence  of  a  basis  of  attributes.  We  have,  however,  a 
clear  intuition  that  matter  exists,  and  reveals  itself  to 
our  senses;  not  indeed  independent  of  its  qualities,  but 
that  it  reveals  itself,  and  not  merely  certain  qualities 
possessed  by  it. 

Nor  is  it  accurate  to  say  that  M  the  properties  of  mat- 
ter are  revealed  to  us."  The  most  we  are  justified  in  as- 
serting, is  that  certain  properties  are  revealed  to  us.  We 
evidently  do  not  know  that  all  its  properties  evidence  to 
us  their  presence.  Indeed,  we  are  unable  to  assign  a 
sufficient  reason  why  we  should  affirm  that  matter,  in 
every  form  which  it  may  assume,  reveals  its  existence  to 
us  by  even  one  of  its  qualities.     Matter  may  exist,  for 


MATTER;    ITS    ESSENCE.  187 

aught  we  know,  under  forms  in  which  no  one  of  its  pro- 
perties affects  our  senses.  In  some  such  forms  it  unques- 
tionably does  exist.  By  no  sense  that  we  possess  can  we 
detect  the  scent  left  by  the  fox  in  his  track,  though  it  is 
undoubtedly  matter,  and  matter  so  arranged  that  the 
trained  dog  can  determine  which  way  the  fox  ran.  We 
may  tacitly  assume  that  the  odor  of  roses,  the  scent  of 
mignonette,  or  the  corpuscular  emanations  from  musk  do 
not  exist  in  the  atmosphere  unless  they  are  in  such  full- 
ness as  to  be  perceptible  by  the  senses,  or  liable  to  detect- 
ion by  some  device  of  ours,  but  it  is  nevertheless  a  purely 
gratuitious  assumption.  They  evidently  may  exist,  almost 
certainly  do  exist,  so  attenuated  as  to  elude  human  de- 
tection. A  solid  substance,  visible  by  the  naked  eye, 
may  be  converted  into  a  liquid,  then  into  a  gas.  In  its 
gaseous  state  it  may  not  be  directly  cognizable  by  any 
one  of  the  five  senses.  Its  presence,  it  is  true,  can  gen- 
erally be  detected  by  some  human  device.  Who  is  pre- 
pared to  affirm,  however,  that  every  gas  reveals  its  pres- 
ence to  us  ?  Certainly,  no  one  is  entitled  to  affirm  that 
it  evidences  its  presence  to  us  through  our  senses;  and  it 
is  unscientific  to  assert  that  it  invariably  reveals  itself  in 
some  way  though  frequently  the  road  is  very  lengthy 
and  exceedingly  circuitous. 

Nor  does  the  difficulty  terminate  here.  We  have  no 
right  to  affirm  that  we  are  able  to  detect  the  existence 
of  any  and  every  possible  gas;  nor  have  we  a  right  to  af- 
firm that  gases,  under  chemical  changes,  may  not  enter 
upon  a  fourth  state,  as  much  more  attenuated  than  gas 
as  gas  is  more  attenuated  than  solids, — a  state  in  which 
they  may  affect  no  human  sense,  and  be  discoverable  by 
no  human  agency,  though  matter  none  the  less.  Who 
has  proved  that  matter  can  only  exist  in  one  of  three 
states, — the    solid,    the    liquid,    or    the    gaseous?     The 


188  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

attenuated  ether  with  which  scientists  persist  in  filling  the 
fields  of  immensity,  and  the  interstices  of  even  the  dens- 
est metals  as  well,  has  not  been  proved  to  have  an  exist- 
ence. The  existence  of  this  all-pervading  luminiferous 
ether  is  a  pure  hypothesis.  Whilst  insisting  upon  this 
hypothesis,  why  do  scientists  continue  to  regard  matter 
as  "  That  which  possesses  properties  whose  existence  is 
revealed  to  us  by  our  senses  "  ?  According  to  their  own 
concessions,  matter  exists  in  one  form  at  least  in  which 
it  does  not  reveal  its  existence  to  us;  exists,  and  in 
quantity  sufficient  to  fill  immensity,  rendering  all  space 
a  "plenum";  in  which  shoreless  ocean  planets  may  swim, 
and  light  may  sport  itself,  and  gravitation  may  pass  her 
unseen  cables  to  distant  orbs,  and  electricity  may  hurry  her 
fiery  steeds  on  missions  to  nebulous  masses  which  are  just 
beginning  to  palpitate  with  evolutional  impulses;  in  which 
imaginary  sea  of  attenuated  matter  liquids  and  solids 
may  permit  their  molecules  to  float,  each  molecule,  in- 
deed each  atom,  enjoying  the  enswathement  of  a  luminif- 
erous, imponderable,  invisible,  intangible,  undiscoverable, 
incomprehensible  "  material  substance"  whose  properties 
are  unknown  and  whose  existence  is  hypothetical. 

By  Descartes,  who  regarded  extension  as  the  only  es- 
sential property  of  matter,  and  matter  as  a  necessary 
condition  of  extension,  ether  was  regarded  as  a  connect- 
ing medium  between  bodies  at  a  distance  from  each 
other,  rendering  all  space  equally  full.  This  plenum 
was  regarded  by  the  disciples  of  Newton  as  indispensably 
necessary  in  order  to  furnish  a  satisfactory  explanation 
of  the  laws  of  gravitation.  Huygens  employed  it  to  ex- 
plain the  propagation  of  light.  Most  scientists  follow 
his  example.  Faraday  conjectures  that  it  is  an  agent  in 
electro-magnetic  phenomena.  The  authors  of  the  Un- 
seen Universe     (a  volume  well  worthy  of  careful   study), 


MATTER;    ITS   ESSENCE.  189 

are  disposed  to  regard  it  as  a  substantial  reality,  of  which 
the  seen  universe  is  but  a  series  of  phenomena.  Most 
physicists  deem  its  existence  in  the  atmosphere,  in  liquids, 
and  in  solids,  an  indispensable  condition  to  the  expla- 
nation of  much  that  otherwise  baffles  science.  Indeed, 
one  may  pertinently  ask,  whether  in  the  ultimate  analy- 
sis, every  phenomenon  of  nature  does  not  find  its  only 
satisfactory  explanation  in  luminiferous  ether. 

Prof.  J.  Clerk  Maxwell  affirms,  in  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannicci)  under  the  caption,  "Ether":  — 

"  Whatever  difficulties  we  may  nave  m  forming  a  consistent  idea  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  ether,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  interplanetary  and  inter- 
stellar spaces  are  not  empty,  but  are  occupied  by  a  material  substance  or  body, 
which  is  certainly  the  largest,  and  probably  the  most  uniform  body  of  which 
we  have  any  knowledge." 

As  long  as  this  all-potent  "  material  substance  "  is  nei- 
ther discoverable  by  the  senses,  nor  detectable  by  ex- 
periment, but  rests  exclusively  upon  the  erring  deductions 
of  reason,  those  who  are  not  scientists  may  be  excused  for 
regarding  matter  as  not  defined  by  saying  it  is  "that  which 
possesses  properties  whose  existence  is  revealed  to  us 
by  our  senses."  If  we  are  scientific  heretics,  heretics  we 
must  remain,  for  the  present  at  least.  If  "  where  faith  be- 
gins, science  ends,"  there  must  be  but  little  science  as  yet. 
A  wearisome  enumeration  of  facts,  though  never  so  neatly 
dovetailed  one  into  the  other,  can  scarcely  be  said  to 
attain  to  the  dignity  of  science  till  they  are  explained 
on  sound  philosophical  principles.  Science  may  explain 
many  links  in  the  lengthy  chain  of  phenomena.  Wher- 
ever it  may  begin,  however,  and  however  long  its  ex- 
planations may  prove  satisfactory,  it  is  certain,  sooner  or 
later,  to  reach  some  link  which  is  veiled  in  impenetrable 
mystery.  Why,  then,  should  its  devotees  be  so  prone — ■ 
a  few  of  them — to  cavil  at  theology  because  the  christian 


190  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

system    encloses    mysteries  which    the  human   intellect 
cannot  solve  ? 

To  return:  the  above  definition  is  also  defective  in  an- 
other respect.  If  there  may  be  matter  which  does  not 
affect  our  senses,  so  also  may  there  be  substances,  imma- 
terial entities,  which  affect  our  senses.  According  to  the 
usually  accepted  theory,  neither  sound  nor  light  is  mat- 
ter; still  each  affects  a  human  sense.  It  is  usual  to  say 
that  there  are  five  human  senses.  Perhaps,  it  would  be 
as  philosophical  to  say  that  there  is  but  one,  touch;  each 
of  the  five  being  a  modification  of  this  one.  The  eye, 
touched  by  light,  gives  a  vision  of  the  object  whence  the 
rays  emanate.  Something  has  touched  the  retina,  form- 
ing a  picture  thereon.  The  ear,  touched  by  sound,  pro- 
duces a  mental  sensation.  Something  has  touched  the 
drum  of  the  ear,  causing  it  to  convey  a  certain  sensation 
to  the  brain.  The  olfactory  nerves,  touched  by  odors, 
give  rise  to  a  particular  sensation  which  we  denominate 
smell.  Something  has  touched  a  set  of  peculiarly  sensi- 
tive nerves  which  are  adapted  to  receive  such  impressions. 
The  tongue,  when  touched  by  certain  material  substances, 
gives  rise  to  the  sensation  known  as  taste.  Something 
has  touched  a  set  of  hair-like  nerves,  which  are  marvel- 
ously  well  fitted  to  respond  to  certain  kinds  of  impres- 
sions. The  nerves  of  the  epidermis  come  in  contact  with 
some  material  substance.  We  have  the  sense  of  touch. 
If  it  is  a  material  entity  which  touches  these  several  sets 
of  nerves  (it  confessedly  is  in  the  case  of  smell,  touch,  and 
taste),  then  is  there  matter  which  does  not  reveal  itself 
to  the  senses  as  matter.  The  eye  is  incapable  of  testify- 
ing whether  light  is  material  or  immaterial;  whether  it 
is  matter,  or  an  entitive  substance,  or  a  mere  undulation. 
The  ear  has  no  evidence  to  present  upon  the  question, 
Is    sound    corpuscular    emanations    of    attenuated    mat- 


MATTER;    ITS   ESSENCE.  191 

ter,  or  corpuscles  of  an  immaterial  substance,  or  a  sim- 
ple undulatory  wave  ?  Those,  therefore,  who  do  not  re- 
gard it  as  attenuated  matter  thrown  off  by  the  rapid 
vibrations  of  a  material  substance,  nor  as  a  substantial 
entity  of  any  kind  whatever,  but  simply  as  an  undulation, 
will  be  slow  to  regard  matter  as  defined  by  saying  that 
it  is  that  which  affects  our  senses.  They  recognize  some- 
thing else  as  affecting  them  quite  frequently.  If  the 
undulatory  theory  is  true — and  it  has  been  accepted 
by  the  majority  of  scientists  since  the  time  of  Pythag- 
oras— then  two  of  our  senses,  sight  and  hearing,  are 
affected  by  that  which  is  not  matter,  nor  any  prop- 
erty of  matter.  Nay,  since  the  mind  during  sleep, 
can  affect  the  senses — sights  being  seen,  sounds  heard, 
and  odors  perceived  which  have  no  objective  reality — and 
since  the  same  effects  can  be  produced  by  electrical  ex- 
citation of  the  internal  organs  of  the  several  senses, — the 
process  being,  as  is  conceded,  purely  subjective, — it  is 
manifest  that  whether  the  undulatory  theory  is  true  or 
false,  matter  is  not  defined  by  saying  it  is  "  that  which 
affects  our  senses." 

In  like  manner,  heat,  electricity,  and  magnetism  can  be 
recognized  by  the  senses,  though  according  to  the  ac- 
cepted theory  they  are  not  matter;  in  the  opinion  of 
many  scientists  are  not  even  substantial  realities.  By 
some  they  are  regarded  as  qualities  of  matter. 

Even  if  it  shall  be  proved  that  these  forces  are  neither 
affections  of  matter  nor  attenuated  forms  thereof;  and 
if  matter,  so  far  as  now  known,  affects  our  senses,  it  does 
not  follow  that  in  every  form  which  it  may  assume,  it 
proclaims  its  existence  by  affecting  one  or  more  of  the  five 
human  senses.  It  is  possible  that  it  may  exist  under 
conditions  unknown  and  unrecognizable  by  us.  Perhaps, 
if  we  possessed  other  senses,  or  if  those  we  now  possess 


192  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

were  as  much  more  delicate  than  they  are  as  they  are 
more  delicate  than  those  of  the  worm,  or  if  each  were  as 
perfect  as  the  most  perfect  sense  possessed  by  the  animal 
kingdom,  we  might  be  as  much  more  extensively  affected 
by  matter  than  we  now  are  as  we  are  more  extensively 
affected  by  it  than  the  oyster  is.  Because  we  possess 
five  senses,  we  are  not  justified  in  concluding  that  there 
are  no  other  possible  avenues  through  which  matter 
might  affect  mind;  and  as  several  of  these  senses  are 
confessedly  more  delicate  in  certain  animals  than  in  man, 
it  is  irrational  to  conclude  that  they  are  sufficiently  deli- 
cate to  be  affected  by  properties  of  matter  whatever  form 
matter  may  happen  to  assume. 

As  matter,  quite  manifestly,  is  not  recognizable  in  all 
its  forms  by  the  direct  evidence  of  the  senses,  so  neither 
is  it  by  the  exercise  of  our  reasoning  powers  in  judging, 
comparing,  analyzing  and  inferring.  We  can  recognize 
gravitation  by  a  process  of  ratiocination;  but  we  cannot 
recognize  it  with  certainty  as  matter,  or  as  not  matter. 
It  is  almost  universally  regarded  as  immaterial;  but  is  it 
less  consonant  with  known  facts  to  assume  that  it  may 
be  substantial  threads  of  attenuated  matter,  or  an  imma- 
terial substance,  as  truly  an  entity  as  the  effluvium  from 
a  plate  of  platinum,  which,  if  the  plate  is  introduced  into 
oxygen  and  hydrogen  when  mixed  in  a  gaseous  state, 
will  cause  chemical  combination,  though  the  plate  is 
apparently  altered  in  no  respect?  Why  is  chemical 
action  induced  by  the  mere  contact  of  a  foreign  body  ? 
We  denominate  it  catalysis.  Shall  we  therefore  proceed 
to  affirm,  as  we  do  in  the  case  of  gravitation,  that,  what- 
ever the  agency  may  be,  it  is  neither  attenuated  matter, 
nor  an  entitive  substance  ?  What  else  can  it  be  ?  An 
effect  has  been  produced.  That  effect  must  have  a  cause, 
If  we  are  to  consider  gravity  as  the  simple  effect  of 


MATTER;    ITS   ESSENCE.  193 

separate  bodies  upon  each  other,  without  the  co-operation 
of  any  intervening  medium,  then  matter  is  possessed  of 
one  property  at  least,  which  our  senses  are  incapable  of 
discerning-,  and  which  reason  can  neither  explain  nor 
prove  to  be  an  essential  attribute  of  material  substances. 
If,  as  Newton  was  disposed  to  think,  gravitation  can  only 
act  by  and  through  something  else;  and  if  that  some- 
thing else  is  either  invisible  threads  of  greatly  attenuated 
matter,  or  a  substantial  entity  of  some  kind — it  cannot 
be  the  intervening  medium,  for  it  acts  through  a  vacuum; 
then  may  material  substances  either  assume  forms  which 
even  man's  higher  faculties  are  incompetent  to  recognize, 
or  they  can  operate  through  substantial  entities  of  which 
we  know  little  or  nothing.  Newton  did  not  regard 
attraction  as  an  essential  attribute  of  matter;  nor  did  he 
regard  it  as  capable  of  acting  except  through  some 
agent.     He  says: — 

"  That  gravity  should  be  innate,  inherent,  and  essential  to  matter,  so  that 
one  body  may  act  upon  another  at  a  distance,  through  a  vacuum,  without  the 
mediation  of  anything  else,  by  and  through  which  their  action  and  force  can  be 
conveyed  from  one  to  another,  is  to  me  so  great  an  absurdity  that  I  believe  no 
man  who  has  in  philosophical  matters  a  competent  faculty  of  thinking,  can  ever 
fall  into  it.  Gravity  must  be  caused  by  an  agent,  acting  constantly  according 
to  certain  laws;  but  whether  this  agency  be  material  or  immaterial  I  have  left 
to  the  consideration  of  my  reader." — Newton's  Third  Letter  to  Bentley. 

A  similar  line  of  argument  may  be  pursued  in  reference 
to  heat,  light,  electricity,  magnetism — all  the  so-called 
modes  of  motion.  They  are  usually  regarded  as  neither 
matter  nor  entitive  substances.  They  nevertheless  reveal 
their  existence  to  us;  though  neither  by  the  testimony 
of  the  senses,  nor  by  experiment,  are  we  able  to  affirm 
with  absolute  certainty  what  they  are,  whether  incorpo- 
real, intangible,  immaterial  entities,  or  attenuated  matter, 
or  modes  of  motion.     Cogent  arguments  can  be  presented 


19 A  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

in  favor  of  each  of  the  three  theories.  It  is  perhaps  pre- 
mature to  say  that  either  has  triumphed  over  its  rivals. 
If  these  forces  are  attenuated  matter,  the  senses  do 
not  so  testify  with  sufficient  clearness  to  remove  grave 
doubts.  If  they  are  properties  of  matter,  the  senses  are 
incapable  of  convincing  us  of  the  fact.  If  they  are  sub- 
stantial, immaterial  entities,  or  are  modes  of  motion,  then 
the  senses  are  affected  by  agencies  that  are  neither 
matter  nor  properties  of  matter. 

We  have  dwelt  at  considerable  length  upon  the  com- 
monly accepted  definition  of  matter,  because,  though 
scientists  are  willing  to  admit  that  we  have  no  logical 
definition  of  the  term,  they  nevertheless  continue  to  em- 
ploy expressions  which  seem  to  imply  that  it  is  definable. 
Besides,  it  has  enabled  us  to  see  that  if  there  are  unex- 
plained facts  in  the  christian  religion,  so  are  there  also 
in  science;  that  if  we  cannot  enumerate  the  contents  of 
the  term  Deity,  so  neither  can  we  enumerate  the  contents 
of  the  term  matter;  that  if  there  are  theological  truths 
which  we  can  but  dimly  comprehend,  so  also  are  there 
scientific  truths  upon  which  no  human  intellect  has 
thrown  clear  light;  that  if  God  and  his  laws  are  unfathom- 
able, so  also  are  nature  and  her  laws;  that  if  faith  is 
demanded  of  those  who  enter  the  domain  of  the  christian 
religion,  no  less  faith,  probably  greater,  is  demanded  of 
those  who  journey  through  the  paths  of  science;  that  if 
human  reason  must  humble  itself  as  it  approaches  the 
foot-stool  of  Divine  Sovereignty,  so  also  must  it  tread 
softly  and  bow  reverently  as  it  stands  in  the  presence  of 
the  unveiled  mysteries  of  nature;  that  scientists  of  the 
agnostic  school  who  presume  to  pronounce  God  unknow- 
able are  assuming  that  nature  is  knowable;  that  those 
who  regard  the  teachings  of  Scripture  as  unworthy  of 
credence  because  its  interpreters  have  frequently  erred, 


MATTER;    ITS    ESSENCE.  195 

would  do  well  to  confess  that  the  teachings  of  science 
are  not  always  the  utterances  of  infallibility. 

An  enumeration  of  the  mistakes  of  science  would 
prove  instructive.  This  field,  though  inviting,  we  leave 
for  the  cultivation  of  our  readers. 

To  resume:  Rev.  Dr.  Joseph  Cook,  in  his  Biology ■, 
Lecture  I.,  defends  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  "  the  estab- 
lished definition"  of  matter,  arguing  with  great  cogency 
against  Prof.  Tyndall's  conception  of  matter  as  one  sub- 
stance having  two  sets  of  properties,  one  set  spiritual, 
the  other  set  physical.  Strange  to  say,  though  he  ex- 
presses surprise  that  Mr.  Tyndall  presents  no  defini- 
tion of  matter,  he  neither  presents  one  himself,  nor 
pauses  to  tell  us  what  is  the  established  definition.  That 
there  is  a  prevalent  conception  of  matter,  backed  by 
scientific  authority,  illustrated  by  numerous  experiments, 
and  sustained  by  acute  reasoning,  we  do  not  deny.  That 
it  is  somewhat  hazy  we  supposed  was  admitted  by  all. 
If  there  is  a  logical  definition  we  are  not  aware  of  it. 
Scientists  are  evidently  ignorant  of  it,  for  they  concede 
that  matter  has  not  been  defined,  and  cannot  be.  They 
even  admit  that  we  are  not  able  to  say  what  are  its 
essential  qualities.  Dr.  Cook  says,  "  It  [the  established 
definition]  affirms  that  inertia,  in  the  strictest  sense  of 
the  word,  is  a  property  of  matter.  ...  It  denies  that 
matter  has  power  to  evolve  organization  and  vitality. 
...  It  denies  that  matter  has  power  to  evolve  thought, 
emotion,  conscience,  and  will."  It  is  evident  that  by 
"  established  definition,"  the  author  means  us  to  under- 
stand prevailing  co?iceptioJi.  He  is  too  acute  a  reasoner 
to  fall  into  the  error  of  imagining  that  we  have  a  defini- 
tion. That  we  are  to  interpret  the  expression  as  mean- 
ing prevailing  conception  is  further  evident  from  the 
fact  that  after  affirming  that  the  definition  includes  the 


106  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

ascription  of  inertia  to  matter,  he  proceeds  to  enumerate 
other  properties,  viz.,  "  extension,  impenetrability,  figure, 
and  color."  Certainly  it  has  not  been  proved  that  the 
above  properties  are  all  essential  to  the  existence  of 
matter,  nor  that  they  are  all  the  properties  which  matter 
possesses.  Evidently,  matter  cannot  be  defined  by  an 
enumeration  of  its  properties  unless  we  know  what  are 
its  essential  properties,  being  thereby  able  to  exclude 
every  non-essential  and  to  include  every  essential  prop- 
erty. This  knowledge  we  do  not  at  present  possess,  as 
all  admit.  Consequently,  Dr.  Cook  no  doubt  concurs  in 
the  opinion  that  a  logical  definition  has  not  been  given, 
and  cannot  be;  and  that  the  descriptive  phrases  employed 
in  the  place  of  a  definition  are  defective  and  unsatis- 
factory. That  we  are  unable  to  enumerate  the  essential 
properties  of  matter  will  appear  in  the  chapter  following. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

MATTER;  ITS  PROPERTIES. 

Of  matter, then, we  have,  as  we  have  seen,  no  definition 
which  will  bear  scrutiny.  We  cannot  say  of  what  genus 
it  is  a  species.  Relatively,  it  is  a  summum  genus,  and  is 
therefore  extremely  difficult  to  define.  We  may  affirm 
that  it  is  not  force,  not  life,  not  mind,  not  spirit;  still  we 
have  no  knowledge  of  its  existence  except  as  associated 
with  one  or  more  of  these.  Of  its  essence  we  know  noth- 
ing. Science  has  not  as  yet  shown  itself  competent  to  the 
task  of  enumerating  its  necessary  qualities.  Its  properties 
are  usually  classified  as  follows: — 

1.  Essential  properties,  or  such  as  are  supposed  to  be 
necessary  to  our  conception  of  matter,  and  to  suffice  to 
define  it;  viz.,  impenetrability  and  extension. 

2.  Accessory  properties,  or  such  as,  though  not  essen- 
tial, are  supposed  to  be  shared  by  all  bodies;  viz.,  divisi- 
bility, porosity,  compressibility,  dilatability,  elasticity, 
mobility,  and  inertia. 

3.  Specific  properties,  or  such  as  belong  to  matter 
under  certain  forms;  viz.,  solidity,  fluidity,  tenacity, 
transparency,  color,  figure,  etc.,  e.  g.,  the  properties 
of  oxygen,  of  iron,  of  vegetable  substances,  of  animal 
matter,  etc. 

It  would  be  hazardous  to  affirm  that  these  properties, 
or  indeed  any  definite  number  of  them,  are  ultimate 
facts.     The  ultimate  qualities  are  no  doubt   much  fewer. 


1S>8  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Of  course  particular  properties  cannot  be  said  to  be 
properties  of  matter;  they  are  merely  properties  of  cer- 
tain aggregations  of  matter.  Solidity  and  figure  maybe 
said  to  be  qualities  of  granite,  of  iron,  etc.  Fluidity  is 
a  quality  of  mercury,  of  water,  of  milk,  etc.  Tenacity 
may  be  designated  a  quality  of  oak,  of  tin,  of  zinc,  etc. 
Transparency  is  a  property  of  glass,  of  clear  water,  etc. 
Neither  of  the  five,  however,  can  be  said  to  be  a  quality 
of  matter,  for  matter  can  unquestionably  exist  in  forms 
which  do  not,  and  cannot  reveal  these  properties,  nor 
indeed  any  one  of  them.  No  one  pretends  that  color 
is  an  essential  quality.  Of  the  accessory  properties,  as 
is  evident,  elasticity,  dilatability,  compressibility,  divis- 
ibility, and  porosity  cannot  be  properties  of  an  atom, 
which  is  none  the  less  matter  on  that  account.  If  an 
atom  has  pores,  or  is  elastic,  or  can  be  compressed,  or 
can  be  dilated,  then  it  can  be  divided.  If  it  can  be 
divided,  it  is  not  what  it  is  defined  to  be,  the  smallest 
possible  portion,  incapable  of  further  division.  And  if  an 
atom  cannot  have  these  properties,  then  they  are  not 
essential  to  matter.  They  can  belong  to  it  only  on  the 
hypothesis  that  it  is  infinitely  divisible,  a  single  particle 
being  capable  of  pervading  immensity.  But  if  it  is  in- 
finitely divisible,  space  must  also  be  infinitely  divisible. 
Unless  we  are  prepared  to  believe  that  both  are  infinitely 
divisible — which  science  does  not  sanction, — we  are 
forced  to  concede  that  elasticity,  porosity,  compressi- 
bility, dilatability,  and  divisibility  are  not  properties  of 
matter,  though  they  are  properties  of  aggregations 
thereof.  Mobility,  or  the  property  in  virtue  of  which  a 
body  may  change  its  position,  few,  if  any,  would  be  dis- 
posed to  regard  as  an  essential  property.  Indeed,  abso- 
lute rest  is  a  thing  unknown.  Everything  is  in  motion; 
perhaps  is  subject  to  several  motions  at  the  same  instant. 


MATTER;    ITS    PROPERTIES.  199 

The  mountain-rock  and  the  forest  are  moving  with  the 
earth  on  its  axis,  are  journeying"  around  the  sun,  are 
swept  through  space  in  conjunction  with  the  solar  sys- 
tem; perhaps,  as  some  scientists  assure  us,  their  atoms 
are  also  in  ceaseless  motion,  those  of  the  densest  rock 
and  those  of  the  hardest  tree  producing,  it  may  be,  a 
ceaseless  hum  by  their  infinitesimal  movements.  Rest 
and  motion  are  relative  terms.  Mobility,  a  purely  neg- 
ative quality,  is  accordingly  not  generally  regarded 
as  an  attribute  of  matter.  If  attraction,  repulsion,  and 
polarity  are  properties,  they  are  one  property  variously 
viewed. 

Nor  can  it  be  proved  that  inertia — the  inability  of  a 
body  to  set  itself  in  motion  when  at  rest,  or  to  cease 
moving  when  in  motion — is  an  essential  property.  As 
already  intimated,  perhaps  it  is  more  accurate  to  say 
that  not  inertia,  but  motion  is  an  attribute  of  matter,  no 
material  substance  being  ever  at  absolute  rest.  Even  on 
this  hypothesis,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  is  one 
thing  to  say  that  it  does  not  cease  moving,  so  far  as  man 
can  discern,  and  another  thing  to  say  that  it  cannot 
cease  moving.  If  matter  is  incapable  of  changing  its 
state  of  rest,  then,  seemingly  at  least,  neither  attraction 
nor  repulsion  are  among  its  essential  attributes;  if  it  is 
incapable  of  changing  its  state  of  motion,  then,  appar- 
ently, there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  an  equilibrium  of 
forces.  We  are  not  warranted,  however,  in  saying  that 
the  forces  of  an  atom  may  not  so  accurately  counter- 
balance each  other  as  to  leave  it  at  rest,  provided  it 
were  not  subject  to  the  forces  of  other  atoms.  Unless 
an  atom  has  the  attribute  of  motion,  so  that  it  would 
move  though  it  were  the  only  material  substance  in  the 
universe,  motion  cannot  be  said  to  be  an  attribute  of 
matter.     Unless  rest  can  be   produced   in   a   universe  in 


200  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

which  atoms  mutually  influence  each  other,  tending  to 
produce  motion,  then  absolute  rest  cannot  be  said  to  be 
an  attribute  of  aggregated  molecules — the  molecules  of 
every  individual  mass  of  matter  must  be  in  motion  inter 
se,  and  must  tend  to  produce  motion  in  every  other 
adjacent  body. 

We  may  assume  that  if  matter  were  at  rest  it  would 
remain  so  eternally  unless  set  in  motion  by  some  power 
from  without;  and  that  if  it  were  in  motion  it  would 
continue  moving  forever  unless  stopped  by  some  external 
agencies;  that  is,  we  may  assume  that  inertia  is  one  of  its 
essential  properties.  This  has  not  been  proved,  however. 
It  is  a  purely  gratuitous  assumption.  We  have  no  know- 
ledge of  it  at  absolute  rest.  We  have  no  testimony  which 
warrants  us  in  asserting  that  it  is  incapable  of  originating 
motion.  It  may  be — probably  is.  We  can  say  no  more. 
Accordingly,  eminent  scientists  concede  that  inertia  is 
not  an  essential  property.  Ganot  defines  it  as  "  a  purely 
negative  property,"  and  of  course  admits  that  it  is  not  a 
necessary  attribute.  Though  matter  may  exist,  it  is  true, 
under  forms  which  are  incapable  of  being  subjected  to 
human  observation,  or  even  to  scientific  experiment,  it  is 
nevertheless  unscientific  to  ascribe  to  it  a  property  which 
has  not  been  proved  to  belong  to  any  of  its  forms  yet 
brought  under  scientific  investigation.  Though  Prof. 
Tyndall  may  ask,  "  Who  will  set  limits  to  the  possible 
play  of  atoms  in  a  cooling  planet  ? "  and  may  regard  all 
life  as  once  "latent  in  a  fiery  cloud";  and  though  the 
admission  that  molecular  activity  may  possibly  be  an 
invariable  attribute  of  aggregated  matter  may  seem  like 
a  concession  to  materialism,  we  are  indisposed  to  regard 
inertia  as  an  essential  property.  The  concession  can  do 
materialism  no  good,  for  Prof.  Tyndall  himself  admits 
that  "  molecular  motion  explains  nothing.  .  .     The  pas- 


MATTER;    ITS    PROPERTIES.  201 

sage  from  the  physics  of  the  brain  to  the  corresponding 
facts  of  consciousness  is  unthinkable." 

Accordingly,  matter  has  only  two  essential  properties, 
impenetrability  and  extension,  other  properties  being 
regarded  as  specific,  that  is,  properties  which  belong  to 
it  under  certain  forms,  not  to  it  in  every  conceivable  form 
it  may  assume. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  there  are  those,  it  is  true, 
who  regard  motion  as  an  essential  attribute;  others 
regard  attraction  and  repulsion,  or  the  influence  of  one 
atom  upon  another,  as  a  necessary  property.  It  is  the 
accepted  theory,  however,  that  impenetrability  and  ex- 
tension are  the  only  essential  attributes. 

The  extreme  difficulty  of  arriving  at  any  measure  of 
certainty  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  reason  does  not  warrant 
us  in  affirming  that  even  impenetrability  is  an  essential 
quality.  That  no  two  material  entities  can  occupy  the 
same  place  at  the  same  time  is  not  an  axiomatic  truth, 
much  as  it  resembles  one.  It  rests  upon  experience.  It 
assumes,  what  has  not  been  proved,  that  an  atom  of  iron 
and  an  atom  of  musk  cannot  occupy  the  same  space  at 
the  same  moment;  that  an  atom  of  platinum,  the  densest 
known  metal,  and  an  atom  of  the  ether,  which  is  declared 
to  pervade  all  material  substances,  cannot  be  in  the  same 
space,  but  must  lie  side  by  side,  though  the  latter  is  nearly 
as  incomprehensible  as  the  former.  We  do  not  deny 
that  impenetrability  may  be  an  essential  attribute.  To 
the  question,  fras  it  been  proved  to  be  ?  we  answer,  No. 

Professor  J.  Clerk  Maxwell  says:  — 

"Boscovich  himself,  in  order  to  obviate  the  possibility  of  two  atoms  ever 
being  in  the  same  place,  asserts  that  the  ultimate  force  is  a  repulsion  which 
increases  without  limit  as  the  distance  diminishes  without  limit,  so  that  two 
atoms  can  never  coincide.  But  this  seems  like  an  unwarrantable  concession 
to  the  vulgar  opinion  that  two  bodies  cannot  co-exist  in  the  same  place.  This 
opinion  is  deduced  from  our  experience  of  the  behavior  of  bodies  of  sensible  size. 


202  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

but  we  have  no  experimental  evidence  that  two  atoms  may  not  sometimes 
coincide.  For  instance,  if  oxygen  and  hydrogen  combine  to  form  water,  we 
have  no  experimental  evidence  that  the  molecule  of  oxygen  is  not  in  the  very 
same  place  with  the  two  molecules  of  hydrogen.  Many  persons  cannot  get  rid 
of  the  opinion  that  all  matter  is  extended  in  length,  breadth,  and  depth.  This  is  a 
prejudice  of  the  same  kind  with  the  last,  arising  from  our  experience  of  bodies 
consisting  of  immense  multitudes  of  atoms.  "—Encyc.  Brit.,  article,  "Atom." 

Descartes  maintained  that  the  entire  universe  was  full 
of  matter  constituted  of  one  single  element  and  having 
only  one  essential  property,  extension.  He  believed 
that  on  testing  the  accepted  qualities  of  material  sub- 
stances we  are  logically  driven,  in  every  instance,  to  the 
conclusion  that  nothing  is  essential  except  extension; 
and  that  all  forces  have  their  ultimate  origin  in  Deity. 
Consequently,  man  cannot  increase  the  sum  of  motion, 
though  he  can  alter  its  direction.  In  a  theory  of  the 
universe,  force  is  no  necessary  factor.  We  have  nothing 
to  do  with  anything  save  motion,  which  is  simply  the 
passage  of  a  body  from  one  point  to  another.  Empty 
space  is  a  fiction.  The  entire  universe  is  full  of  matter 
— more  dense  and  less  dense — full  everywhere.  A 
vacuum  is  a  myth;  an  atom,  an  inconceivable  figment. 
Matter  is  infinitely  divisible. 

It  is  questionable  whether  the  results  of  this  a  priori 
reasoning  have  been  subverted  by  the  experiments  with 
which  the  inductive  method  of  studying  science  has 
rendered  us  familiar.  We  are  tolerably  safe  in  affirming 
that  science  has  not  yet  proved  that  matter  has  more 
than  one  essential  attribute,  extension;  nor  that  what 
it  denominates  an  atom  may  not  be  an  aggregation 
of  infinitely  divisible  particles;  nor  that  the  physica- 
forces  may  not  be  the  immanence  of  the  divine  will  in 
nature.  To  concede  that  the  forces  of  nature  are  inherent 
attributes  of  matter  is  to  make  a  concession  helpful  to 
materialism.     It    is    thereby    encouraged    to    make    the 


MATTER;    ITS    PROPERTIES.  203 

assertion  that  mind,  a  particular  kind  of  force,  is  an 
attribute  of  matter. 

It  is  not  denied  that  matter  may  assume  new 
properties  on  its  assumption  of  new  forms;  but  to  say 
that  the  usually  enumerated  attributes  of  matter  be- 
long to  every  form  which  matter  may  assume,  and 
consequently  to  every  atom,  is  to  make  an  unwarrantable 
assertion. 

If,  as  is  quite  generally  conceded,  force  is  immaterial, 
the  question  arises,  Is  it  not  an  invariable  concomitant 
of  matter  ?  Science,  with  considerable  unanimity  and 
with  no  little  confidence,  is  disposed  to  answer,  Yes, 
for  no  matter,  so  far  as  we  know,  exists  without  force; 
and  indeed,  no  force,  not  even  mind,  so  far  as  observa- 
tion extends,  either  exists  or  can  exist  dissevered  from 
matter.  Even  the  latter  half  of  this  statement,  if 
established  with  scientific  accuracy,  need  cause  the 
christian  no  alarm.  An  immaterial  entity  may  perhaps 
not  exist  dissevered  from  matter.  If  it  shall  be  made  to 
appear  that  the  mind  neither  exists  nor  can  exist  except 
in  association  with  matter,  it  will  still  be  competent  for 
us  to  affirm,  It  has  not  been  proved  that  the  mind  is 
material,  nor  that  it  perishes  with  the  body.  The  soul, 
when  its  connection  with  the  earthly  tabernacle  is  dis- 
solved, may  possess  a  celestial  body.  Paul  seems  to  in- 
timate as  much,  for  he  says  there  are  celestial  bodies 
and  terrestrial  bodies,  the  glory  of  the  celestial  being 
one,  and  the  glory  of  the  terrestrial  another.  Those, 
therefore,  who  persist  in  assuring  us  that  a  "  disembodied 
spirit  "  capable  of  seeing  without  eyes,  of  hearing  with- 
out ears,  of  remembering  without  a  brain  to  retain 
impressions,  of  loving  without  mental  sensibilities,  of 
reasoning  without  lobes  of  the  brain  with  which  to 
carry    on    the    process,    of    willing    without    volitional 


204 


THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 


nerves  — those  who   regard    this    as    an    irrational    con- 
ception, inasmuch  as  we  neither  know  nor  are  capable 
of  conceiving  of  mental  activity  dissevered    from    mat- 
ter, must  undertake  to  prove,  what  christians  are  under 
no    necessity    of    believing,    that    the    soul    after    the 
death  of  its  present  body  has    no    material    tabernacle 
no  "  house  from  above,  not  made  with  hands,"  no  body 
however  attenuated,  because  it  has  none  which  is  visible 
tangible,  and  ponderable.     Because  angelic  existences' 
and  human  souls  when  released  from  earth,  are  supposed 
not  to  possess  terrestrial  bodies,  it  does  not  follow  that 
they  are  bodiless.     Who  is  prepared  to  affirm  that  the 
human  soul,  which  constructs  for  itself  a  body  fitted  to 
its  existence  on  earth,  cannot  construct  for  itself  a  body 
adapted  to  another  state  of  existence  ? 

It  is  common  to  divide  matter  into  two  classes    the 
inorganic  and  the  organic;  and  yet,  perhaps,  we  ou-ht 
frankly  to  admit  that  the  only  difference  is  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  molecules.     The  material  which  enters  into 
living  organisms— unless,  as    has  not  been    proved,  life 
itself  is  matter,  and  perhaps  even  then— is  most  probably 
the  same  as  that  which,  when  not  in  organic  form    we 
denominate  inorganic.     The  organa  hasten  back  into'  the 
morgana.     And  yet,  why  is  animal  life  dependent  upon 
the  pre-existence  of  vegetable  life,  being  incapable  of 
assimilating  anything  else  than  protoplasmic  elements? 
Perhaps,  the  only  answer  which  can  be  given  is  this:  Be- 
cause animals  are  so  constituted  by  their  Creator  as  to 
need,  for  their  sustenance,  material  substances  combined 
in  such    proportions,   and    possibly  with    the    molecules 
arranged    in    such    ways    as    neither    occur  in  inorganic 
nature,  nor  are  capable  of  being  produced  by  man  inde- 
pendent of  the  operation  of  vital  forces.     Man  has  never 
made  an  atom  of  food  from  inorganic  matter.     Why  is 


MATTER;    ITS    PROPERTIES.  205 

the  vegetable  kingdom  capable  of  doing  what  the  animal 
kingdom  is  incapable  of  doing — feeding  upon  ammonia, 
carbon,  phosphorus,  etc.  ?  We  are  disposed  to  answer, 
Because  God  has  so  constituted  it.  Can  evolutionists 
present  a  more  satisfactory  solution  ? 

Some  are  disposed  to  consider  it  probable  that  there 
is  only  one  material  element  in  the  world.  They  remind 
us  that  though  the  number  of  the  elements  was  once 
thought  to  be  countless,  it  has  been  reduced  to  sixty- 
three,  and  may  soon  be  lessened;  that  no  one  is  prepared 
to  say  that  a  complete  analysis  would  not  prove  that 
everything  can  be  reduced  to  one  element;  that  chemis- 
try is  accumulating  testimony  to  this  effect;  that  the 
number  and  variety  of  the  forms  assumed  are  due  to  dif- 
ferent arrangements  of  molecules.  These,  it  is  argued, 
when  arranged  in  a  certain  set  of  ways  constitute  solids 
— mineral,  vegetable,  and  animal — with  their  various 
properties;  when  arranged  according  to  a  different  and 
definite  system,  constitute  liquids,  with  their  several 
specific  qualities;  when  arranged  in  accordance  with  a 
third  method,  constitute  gases  with  their  particular 
attributes;  when  arranged  in  a  fourth  way,  constitute 
Prof.  Crooke's  fourth  state  of  matter,  light,  heat,  elec- 
tricity, magnetism. 

Perhaps,  we  ought  to  concede  that  it  is  somewhat 
irrational  to  assume  that  there  is  any  radical  difference 
in  the  substratum  of  material  substances.  Possibly,  we 
shall  yet  be  forced  to  content  ourselves  with  establishing 
a  basic  distinction  between  mind  and  matter,  between  the 
immaterial  and  the  material,  between  corporeal  entities 
and  incorporeal  entities.  Platinum,  the  densest  known 
material  substance,  may  be  converted  into  a  liquid,  then 
into  a  gas.  May  it  also  be  converted  into  a  fourth  state, 
electricity  ?     May  it  be,  as  Prof.    Lockyer   conjectures, 


206  THEISM  AND   EVOLUTION. 

that  all  material  substances  have  been  condensed  from 
one  single  basic  element  ?* 

If,  so  far  as  the  three  states  of  matter  are  concerned, 
there  is  only  one  elementary  substance,  then  what  are  its 
properties  ?  Are  these  its  affections;  light,  heat,  elec- 
tricity, magnetism,  motion  ?  Are  these  the  agencies 
which  arrange  material  molecules  in  their  varied  forms  ? 
Are  these  several  affections  only  modes  of  motion,  leav- 
ing the  original  element  with  only  one  attribute,  motion, 
eternal  and  indestructible  ?  This  question  will  come 
under  discussion  when  we  come  to  treat  of  forces.  Is 
life  simply  a  particular  molecular  arrangement,  a  certain 
affection  of  matter  ?  This  theory  we  shall  examine  when 
we  consider  the  question,  What  is  life  ? 

Speculation,  whose  unwearied  wings  essay  the  impos- 
sible task  of  reaching  the  outer  boundaries  of  immensity, 
has  favored  us  with  the  hypothesis  that  there  may  be 
but  one  substance  in  the  universe.  We  are  assured  that 
the  tendency  of  science  is  towards  unity,  and  that  it  is 
most  philosophical  to  conclude  that  there  is  only  one 
substratum  in  the  universe,  and  that  in  this,  any  or  all 
qualities  may  inhere.  By  some,  matter  is  regarded  as 
this  under-lying  entity.  Our  argument  against  material- 
ism will  be  found  in  a  subsequent  chapter.  Others  prefer 
to   regard  spirit  as  the  only  reality.      They  deny  that 

*  Prof.  W.  R.  Grove,  in  treating  of  the  correlation  of  the  physical  forces,  in- 
forms us  under  the  head  of  Catalysis,  that  if  "  one  portion  of  a  strip  of  platinum 
is  immersed  in  a  tube  of  oxygen,  and  the  other  in  one  of  hydrogen,  both  the 
gases  and  the  extremities  of  the  platinum  being  connected  by  water  or  other 
electrolyte,  a  voltaic  combination  is  formed,  and  electricity,  heat,  light,  magnet- 
ism, and  motion  produced  at  the  will  of  the  experimenter." — Correlation  and 
Conservation  of  Forces:  a  series  of  expositions  by  Prof.  Grove,  Prof.  Ilel/ji- 
holtz,  and  others,  with  an  introduction  by  E.  L.   Youmans,  M.  D.,  p.  170. 

Is  the  platinum  converted  into  electricity,  heat,  light,  magnetism,  and  motion? 
It  would,  perhaps,  be  unscientific  to  say  that  the  facts  were  inexplicable  on  this 
hypothesis.     We  wait  for  further  light. 


MATTER;    ITS    PROPERTIES.  207 

matter  has  any  real  existence.  All  visible  objects 
are  regarded  as  conceptions  of  the  creative  faculties 
of  the  human  mind.  The  only  existences  are  the  soul 
and  its  creations. 

The  difficulties  connected  with  the  acceptance  of  ideal- 
ism are  many  and  serious.  One  readily  suggests  itself. 
If  the  pen  with  which  I  am  now  writing  has  no  existence, 
being  merely  a  conception  of  my  own  brain,  then  how  am 
I  to  be  convinced  that  my  subjective  conception  of  a  pen 
has  any  reality  ?  To  the  idealist  I  may  say,  Your  concep- 
tion of  a  pen  is  not  a  reality.  You  have  only  a  convic- 
tion that  you  have  such  a  conception.  Even  this  con- 
viction is  not  a  reality,  for  you  have  only  an  impression 
that  you  have  such  a  conviction.  Your  impression  that 
you  have  a  conviction  of  the  existence  of  a  conception  of 
a  pen  is  not  a  reality,  for  you  have  only  a  fancy  that  you 
have  such  an  impression.  This  process  may  be  continued 
to  an  unlimited  extent,  forcing  him  to  concede  either  that 
all  are  real,  the  fancy,  the  impression,  the  conviction,  the 
conception,  and  the  pen,  or  to  acknowledge  himself  drift- 
ing hopelessly  upon  the  sea  of  absolute  skepticism.  He 
can  know  nothing,  not  even  the  reality  of  his  own  exist- 
ence. The  universe  is  a  phantom;  life,  a  dream;  exist- 
ence, a  perhaps;  thought,  a  succession  of  fleeting  shadows 
cast  by  nothingness  upon  the  dark  curtains  that  pavilion 
it.     Everything  is  an  illusion. 

Even  this,  some  are  prepared  to  admit.  The  agnostic 
asserts,  We  can  know  nothing.  Then  how  does  he 
happen  to  know  that  we  can  know  nothing  ?  His  labored 
arguments  to  prove  the  theory  he  adopts,  completely 
demolish  it  the  moment  they  acquire  sufficient  cogency 
to  establish  it.  This  looks  like  intellectual  suicide.  He 
has  no  faith  in  the  trustworthiness  of  the  senses;  no  faith 
in  the  validity  of  human  reason;  still  he  employs  reason 


208  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

as  a  means  of  acquiring-  a  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  he 
can  have  no  knowledge.  As  he  boastingly  asserts  that 
no  human  being  can  know  anything,  it  is  somewhat  pre- 
sumptuous to  undertake  the  task  of  convincing  the  world 
of  the  truth  of  his  theory. 

Of  those  who  are  indisposed  to  rest  satisfied  till  they 
have  obtained  a  unified  conception  of  the  universe,  there 
is  a  third  class,  substantialists.  These  regard  it  as  possi- 
ble, and  probable,  that  all  substances,  the  immaterial  and 
the  material,  may  have  been  formed  by  the  divine  fiat 
from  one  elementary  substance.  This  theory,  as  its 
advocates  claim,  presents  a  beautifully  consistent  and 
closely  connected  series  of  effects,  from  the  eternal, 
self-existent  fountain  of  all  being,  down  through  spirit, 
mind,  instinct,  life,  magnetism,  light,  heat,  electricity, 
and  gravitation,  to  what  are  known  as  material  substances 
in  their  third  state  (assumed  to  be  the  most  attenuated 
state  of  which  they  are  capable), — odor,  gas,  air;  thence 
through  the  second  state,  liquids, — water,  mercury,  etc., 
to  the  solids, — earth,  wood,  lighter  metals,  rock,  steel, 
platinum.  One  eternal  substance  exists  under  the  various 
forms  which  Deity  has  seen  fit  to  impose  upon  it.  This 
substance  in  its  original  condition  is  not  to  be  regarded, 
however,  as  gross  matter,  but  as  an  indestructible,  sub- 
stantial entity,  imponderable,  intangible,  invisible; — as 
that,  perhaps,  which  passes  under  the  designation  of  spirit. 
Every  entity  is  a  portion  of  this  eternal  substance  in 
some  one  of  the  innumerable  stages  of  its  ever-varying 
condensation. 

Professor  Tyndall's  conception  of  matter,  as  also  the 
conception  of  Bain,  Spencer,  and  others,  is  that  of  a  single 
material  element  having  two  sets  of  properties,  the  spirit- 
ual and  the  physical.  This  theory  will  be  examined  at 
greater  length    in  succeeding   chapters.     Meanwhile,    it 


MATTER;    ITS    PROPERTIES.  209 

may  suffice  to  note  the  fact  that  determined  efforts  are 
made  to  change  the  current  conception  of  matter,  sub- 
stituting this  exploded  doctrine  of  hylozoism,  revamped 
and  accommodated  to  the  nebular  hypothesis,  to  evolu- 
tion, and  to  the  atomic  theory.  Every  living  organism,  it 
is  assumed,  has  been  successfully  traced  back  to  one  pri- 
mordial germ,  the  primeval  parent  of  everything  posses- 
sing life,  whether  vegetable  or  animal.  From  this  one 
germ  evolution  has  developed  everything,  and  is  capable 
of  explaining  all  changes;  for  matter  has  spiritual 
attributes  as  well  as  physical:  it  may  hate,  love,  hope, 
will,  reason,  etc.,  as  well  as  possess  solidity,  tenacity, 
elasticity,  color,  weight,  etc.  This  all-potent  germ,  it  is 
assumed,  was  once  potentially  in  the  chaotic  elements 
from  which  the  solar  system  was  formed.  "  Emotion,  in- 
tellect, will,  and  all  their  phenomena  were  once  latent  in  a 
fiery  cloud."  "  I  discern  in  matter  the  promise  and  po- 
tency of  every  form  and  quality  of  life."  We  are  expected 
to  change  our  conceptions  of  matter  and  to  regard  men- 
tality as  one  of  its  affections.  Indeed,  it  is  candidly  con- 
ceded that  unless  the  distinction  between  mind  and  mat- 
ter, as  heretofore  understood,  is  broken  down,  it  will  be 
impossible  to  banish  God  from  the  universe.  "  Either  let 
us  open  the  doors  freely  to  the  conception  of  creative 
acts,  or,  abandoning  them,  let  us  radically  change  our 
notions  of  matter." 

The  advocates  of  this  form  of  materialism  boastingly 
assert  that  belief  in  the  existence  of  two  substances, 
mind  and  matter,  is  no  longer  tenable,  having  been 
abandoned  by  the  most  advanced  thinkers.  But  if  these 
reasoners  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  the  history  of 
materialistic  theories  and  atheistic  speculations,  their 
enthusiasm  may  possibly  subside.  Belief  in  spiritual 
existences  is  an  apparition  which  has  not  disappeared  at 


210  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

the  bidding  of  materialistic  metaphysicians;  and  it  is 
safe  to  say  will  not  till  the  granite  wall,  the  distinction 
between  mind  and  matter,  has  crumbled  to  decay  and 
been  swept  into  oblivion,  not  by  the  hot  breath  of  angry 
contention,  but  by  the  force  of  irresistible  logic  from  the 
lips  of  those  who  whisper  amid  their  burning  tears,  Alas, 
there  is  no  spiritual  God. 

It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  highest  generalization  which 
science  has  as  yet  been  able  to  reach  is,  that  there  are 
three  substances,  each  possessing  a  unity  of  its  own  and 
correlated  with  each  of  the  others: — 

1.  Matter,  capable  of  existing  in  countless  myriads  of 
forms  under  three  states,  solid,  liquid,  and  gaseous, — the 
basic  elements  being  substantially  the  same,  and  pos- 
sibly one  single  element,  in  whatever  condition  it  may 
exist. 

2.  Physical  force,  immaterial,  indestructible,  conver- 
tible, most  probably  the  immanence  of  the  Divine  Will 
in  nature;  capable  of  existing  as  light,  heat,  electricity, 
magnetism,  and  chemical  affinity,  each  of  which  can  be 
converted  into,  and  has  its  exact  equivalent  in,  each  of 
the  others. 

3.  Life,  capable  of  manifesting  itself  under  innumer- 
able forms  in  three  distinct  though  allied  states,  vege- 
table, animal,  and  rational; — life  without  mentality  or 
spirit,  plants;  life  with  mentality  in  varying  degrees,  but 
without  spirit,  animals;  life  with  both  mentality  and 
spirit,  man. 

This  makes  three  realms,  matter,  force,  life;  three 
substantial  entities,  only  one  of  which  is  material,  the 
remaining  two  being  entitative  existences,  though  imma- 
terial. Of  course  speculation  is  at  liberty  to  employ  it- 
self in  the  arduous  attempt  to  reach  a  higher  generaliza- 
tion, and  to  prove,  if  it  can,   that  these  three  substances 


MATTER;    ITS   PROPERTIES.  211 

are  only  different  modes  of  existence  of  one  and  the 
same  eternal  substance.  As  yet  this  task  has  not  been 
performed.  When  it  shall  be,  if  it  ever  shall,  a  Personal 
Will  may  be  found  to  be  the  origin  of  all  things;  science, 
at  the  end  of  her  lengthy  process  of  induction,  attaining 
the  result  which  faith  has  long  since  reached,  and  reason 
is  now  able  to  sustain  by  unanswerable  a  priori  argu- 
ments. We  can  well  afford  to  encourage  science  in 
prosecuting  her  investigations  with  vigor,  fearless  of  the 
legitimate  results  of  careful  inquiry. 

Matter  has  not  been  defined,  not  even  have  its  bound- 
aries been  accurately  traced. 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

MATTER;    ITS   ORIGIN. 

In  reference  to  the  origin  of  matter  various  opinions 
have  prevailed  and  do  still  prevail,  especially  in  cultured 
nations.  Savages,  it  is  true,  seldom  pause  to  ask  whether 
that  which  exists  needs  to  have  had  a  beginning — it 
exists,  they  trouble  themselves  no  further;  but  in  every 
age  the  thoughtful  have  been  persistently  endeavoring  to 
answer  the  question,  Whence  came  matter  ?  To  the 
incessantly  recurring  inquiry,  the  following  responses 
have  been  made: — 

I.  Matter  had  no  beginning.  It  is  eternal,  having 
always  existed  substantially  as  it  now  is.  This  is  the 
theory  of  materialistic  atheism. 

II.  Matter  is  an  evolution  from  force,  whose  original 
homogeneity  differentiated  into  heterogeneity,  producing 
light,  heat,  magnetism,  electricity;  through  these  agen- 
cies, matter,  in  its  myriad  forms,  came  into  existence,  be- 
ing a  product  of  eternally-existent,  omnipresent  Force. 
The  only  "  Eternal  Reality,"  the  only  "Unconditioned 
Entity,"  the  "  Cause  of  all  causes,"  is  Force.  This  is 
the  theory  of  physical  atheism. 

III.  Matter  is  embodied  thought.  Thought,  "  the 
Ultimate  of  all  ultimates,"  "  the  Source  of  all  begin- 
nings," impelled  by  an  innate  necessity,  evolved  into 
force,  into  laws,  into  material  existences.  The  universe 
is  manifested  thought,    coming  to   self-consciousness   in 


MATTER;    ITS    ORIGIN.  213 

man.     "An  Absolute  Idea"   is    the    enduring     Reality. 
This  germ  has  produced  pantheism  in  its  various   forms. 

IV.  Matter  is  the  immediate  creation  of  a  supra- 
mundane  God.  This  is  the  theory  of  absolute  creation, 
or  creation  ex  niliilo,  as  it  is  denominated  (inaccurately, 
we  think).  It  is  the  opinion  generally  adopted  by  the 
christian  church.  In  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  it  is  expressed  in  the  following  terms: — "  It 
pleased  God  ....  for  the  manifestation  of  the  glory  of 
his  eternal  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness,  in  the  begin- 
ning, to  create,  or  make  of  notJiing,  the  world  and  all 
things  therein,  whether  visible  or  invisible. 

V.  Matter  is  an  effluence  from  Deity,  produced  by 
the  exercise  of  his  own  will.  God  formed  the  universe 
out  of  the  fringings  of  his  own  eternal  garments.  This 
theory  is  adopted  by  a  class  of  theologians  who  regard 
it  as  irrational,  if  not  indeed  inconceivable,  that  some- 
thing should  come  from  nothing,  even  in  obedience  to 
the  fiat  of  an  omnipotent  God. 

What  is  the  absolute  Cause  of  all  things  ?  Five 
answers  have  been  given;  Matter,  Force,  Thought,  an 
Unconditioned  Divine  Will,  a  Personal  God.  Of  these, 
two  are  atheistic;  one  is  pantheistic;  two  are  theistic. 
To  their  consideration  we  address  ourselves. 

I.  Matter  had  no  beginning. 

Materialists  persist  in  asserting  that  it  is  as  rational  to 
affirm  that  matter  is  uncreated  and  eternal,  as  to  affirm 
that  God  is  an  uncaused,  eternal  Being;  that  inasmuch  as 
we  have  no  proof  that  since  the  beginning  of  the  present 
order  of  things  a  single  atom  has  been  created  or  has 
been  annihilated,  or  indeed  can  be;  and  inasmuch  as  no 
trustworthy  evidence  exists  that  there  are  any  realities 
except  the  protean  forms  of  this  ever-changing,  infi- 
nitely plastic  material  substance;  and  inasmuch  as  this 


214  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

dictum  of  science,  "No  matter,  no  force:  no  force,  no 
matter,"  necessitates  the  belief  that  thought  may  be, 
almost  certainly  is,  one  of  the  attributes  of  matter,  as 
much  so  as  solidity,  weight,  elasticity,  etc., — therefore, it 
is  most  consonant  with  reason  to  assume  that  matter  is 
self-existent,  all-potent,  eternal,  the  Unconditioned  Cause 
of  all  causes,  the  Absolute  Reality. 

In  refutation  of  this  atheistic  theory  it  may  be  said: — 
I.  To  say  that  self-consciousness  is  an  attribute  of 
matter — as  this  theory  must — is  to  make  an  assertion 
which  is  not  only  at  variance  with  our  fundamental  no- 
tions, but  is  nearly,  or  quite,  inconceivable.  To  assume 
that  matter  can  work  itself  into  forms  in  which  it  becomes 
conscious  of  its  own  existence  is  an  assumption  which  few 
are  disposed  to  make.  It  requires  a  radical  change  in  our 
conceptions.  I  am  conscious  of  my  own  existence.  I 
have  no  doubt  of  the  existence  of  other  self-conscious 
beings.  I  believe  in  the  existence  of  objects  which  are 
devoid  of  self-consciousness.  I  see  the  earth  on  which  I 
tread — not  all  of  it,  but  enough  to  assure  me  that  it  is 
something  outside  of  myself.  I  see  the  sun  in  the  heavens 
— not  in  its  totality,  but  I  am  confident  it  is  something 
totally  distinct  from  the  subjective  reality  which  contem- 
plates it.  I  see  material  objects  all  around  me — not  all 
of  them,  but  I  am  convinced  that  they  are  a  part  of  the 
?ion-egoy  the  not-self.  I  cannot  see  all  the  matter  in  the 
universe,  but  I  have  an  intuitive  conviction  that  the  reality 
which  discerns  is  distinct  from  the  objects  discerned.  In- 
deed, when  one  comes  to  a  consciousness  of  his  own  ex- 
istence as  an  entity  distinguishable  from  all  other  entities, 
he  is  forced  by  the  principle  of  causation  to  believe  in  the 
possible  existence  of  a  higher  self-conscious  Personality, 
of  which  he  himself,  all  other  self-conscious  beings,  the 
world,  all  existences,  are  but  effects.     Unconsciousness 


MATTER;    ITS    ORIGIN.  215 

cannot  grow  into  consciousness;  the  cause  which  origin- 
ates personality  must  be  a  person.  Rationality  cannot 
have  irrationality  for  its  father.  Will  cannot  be  the  child 
of  matter.  The  sensibilities  cannot  be  the  fruitage  of 
insensibility.  Freedom  cannot  be  the  blossom  of  inex- 
orable necessity.  An  intelligence  which  is  capable  of 
employing  fitting  agencies  for  the  accomplishment  of 
predetermined  ends  cannot  arise  out  of  nescience. 

Self-consciousness  is  a  rock  upon  which  every  mate- 
rialistic theory  may  be  ground  to  powder.  To  this  we 
shall  recur  in  a  subsequent  chapter.  Our  present  pur- 
pose is  merely  to  outline  an  argument. 

2.  Materialism  fails  utterly  in  accounting  for  the  sense 
of  personal  identity.  If  there  is  nothing  in  a  human  be- 
ing but  matter,  and  that,  as  is  conceded,  is  in  constant 
flux,  the  entire  body  disappearing  every  year  as  science 
now  asserts,  how  does  it  happen  that  we  retain  the  con- 
viction of  identity  ?  It  is  granted,  alike  by  theists,  by 
pantheists,  and  by  atheists,  that  the  Uncreated  Source  of 
all  things  must  be  a  unity,  self-existent,  omnipresent, 
eternal.  It  is  conceded  that  this  First  Principle  must 
contain  in  itself  a  sufficient  reason  for  all  that  has  oc- 
curred and  for  whatever  now  exists.  It  must  be  a  perfect 
generalization,  an  absolute  siimmumge7ins.  It  must  fur- 
nish a  satisfactory,  at  least  a  credible,  explanation  of 
every  fact  in  the  universe.  It  is  the  demand  of  reason 
that  everything  in  the  domain  of  the  actual  should  find 
at  least  a  plausible  solution  in  that  which  is  assumed  as 
the  Absolute  Reality.  Is  the  sense  of  personal  identity 
explained,  or  is  an  explanation  possible,  or  even  conceiv- 
able, on  the  hypothesis  that  matter  is  the  self-existent, 
omnipresent,  eternal  unity  ?  We  unhesitatingly  answer, 
No.  Still,  no  one  will  deny  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as 
the  sense  of  continued  personal  existence.     How  is  this 


216  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

even  conceivable  on  the  theory  of  the  materialist  ?  If 
there  is  nothing  but  matter  and  its  inherent  forces,  and 
if  the  human  system  is  undergoing  incessant  and  rapid 
changes,  how  is  it  possible  to  retain  the  sense  of  identity? 

With  scarcely  less  cogency  we  might  ask,  How  is  it 
possible  to  explain  memory  ? 

This  argument,  however,  and  the  preceding  as  well, 
will  be  more  fully  elaborated  when  we  come  to  discuss 
mind  and  its  relations  to  matter.  We  are  now  more  im- 
mediately concerned  with  the  question,  Is  matter  eter- 
nal ?     No:  for, — 

3.  Behind  the  phenomenal  there  must  be  the  real;  an- 
tecedent to  the  mutable  there  must  be  the  immutable; 
i.  e.y  a  Personal  Being  who  finds  his  motives  to  action  in 
himself  alone. 

The  solar  system  came  into  being  as  a  result  of  trans- 
mutations. The  sun  is  subject  to  incessant  changes  and 
is  destined,  apparently,  to  ultimate  extinction.  The 
earth,  under  the  disintegrating  influence  of  storms,  of 
sunshine,  of  frost,  of  winds,  of  earthquakes,  and  of  vol- 
canoes, is  ceaselessly  changing  its  external  aspect,  and  is 
hastening  to  enter  upon  another  condition.  Plants  are 
evolved  from  germs:  they  perfect  themselves,  and  then 
perish,  others  taking  their  places.  Animals  are  born, 
live  and  die — the  succession  coming  forth  from  the  buried 
past,  and  capable,  apparently,  of  extending  into  the 
indefinite  future.  Death  is  succeeded  by  life;  genesis, 
by  annihilation.  Is  the  universe  a  mere  succession  of 
fleeting  phenomena?  No:  beneath  the  changing  there 
must  be  the  enduring;  behind  the  mutable,  there  must 
be  the  immutable;  back  of  the  varying  there  must  be 
the  constant.  There  could  not  be  the  unstable  phe- 
nomena, unless  there  was  an  abiding  Reality. 

Reason,  then,  is  forced  to  concede  that  there  must  be 


MATTER;   ITS    ORIGIN.  217 

an  enduring  substance,  a  "  something  "  which  continues 
while  all  else  changes,  "a  something"  which  is  at  once 
the  substratum  of  changes  and  the  cause  which  produces 
them.  Can  this  substance  be  matter?  No:  for  it  also 
is  undergoing  ceaseless  change,  forming  itself  into  new 
worlds,  hastening  forwards  into  new  forms;  it  is  itself 
phenomenal.  An  intelligent  design  runs  through  all  the 
changes,  a  design  which  it  is  impossible  to  regard  as  one 
of  its  attributes.  The  cause  of  all  reality  must  not  only 
be  itself  a  reality;  but  it  must  possess  efficiency  ade- 
quate to  the  production  of  everything,  itself  excepted. 
Can  impersonal  matter  produce  personality  ?  To  the 
production  of  this  there  must  evidently  be  a  self-deter- 
mining will;  there  must  be  self-consciousness.  Nothing 
can  be  the  father  of  personality  but  personality;  that  is, 
consciousness,  will,  separate  subsistence — the  essential 
elements  of  personality. 

The  Absolute  First,  the  Primus,  the  Cause  of  all 
changes,  must  therefore  be  a  Personal  Will.  If  it  is 
necessary  to  postulate  the  existence  of  matter  to  ac- 
count for  phenomena  to  which  it  gives  rise,  it  is  no 
less  necessary  to  postulate  the  existence  of  mind  in 
order  to  account  for  phenomena  to  which  it  gives  rise, 
and  which  are  otherwise  inexplicable. 

An  eternal  succession  of  phenomena  implies  the  exist- 
ence of  an  eternal  substance  capable  of  producing  the 
phenomena.  Is  it  possible  to  believe  that  an  eternal 
succession  of  shadows  can  chase  each  other  across  the 
meadow  unless  there  is  somewhere  a  substance  capable 
of  casting  the  shadows  ?  Certainly,  an  eternal  succession 
of  shadows  cannot  be  cast  by  an  eternal  succession  of 
shadows. 

An  infinite  series  of  changes  implies  an  enduring  sub- 
stance which  is  the  subject  of  those  changes.     An  infinite 


218  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

series  of  shadows,  each  cast  by  a  shadow  that  went  before, 
is  inconceivable.  The  first  duty,therefore,of  the  material- 
ist is  to  inform  us  what  is  that  underlying  reality  which 
remains  unchanged  and  unchangeable  in  all  the  forms 
which  matter  assumes.  He  has  not  defined  matter;  he 
has  not  informed  us  what  are  its  essential  qualities. 
What  attributes  are  common  to  all  its  forms  ? 

We  affirm,  then,  that  behind  the  evanishing  there  must 
be  the  abiding;  behind  the  powerless  there  must  be  the 
potent;  behind  the  seen  there  must  be  the  unseen;  back 
of  the  material  there  must  be  the  Immaterial. 

4.  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  changes  to  which  matter 
is  subject  should  evince  design,  if  there  is  no  Personal 
Will.  In  what  does  this  adaptation  of  means  to  ends 
inhere  ?  Evidently  not  in  matter,  tor  design  is  not  one 
of  its  attributes.  What,  then,  is  it  which  produces  these 
purposive  changes  ?  what  organizes  and  governs  all 
things  ?  What  determines  all  forms,  all  relations,  and 
the  adaptations  everywhere  apparent  ?  A  development 
without  a  beginning  is  inconceivable;  an  evolution  with- 
out an  evolver  is  an  absurdity;  the  atheist  does  not 
render  it  possible  to  conceive  of  a  series  without  a  first 
term,  by  simply  asserting  that  the  series  is  infinite.  He 
has  not  imparted  a  finite  conception:  he  has  only  pro- 
duced confusion.  If  there  is  no  design  in  any  single 
member  of  the  series,  the  series  does  not  become  pur- 
posive by  becoming  infinite.  Besides,  how  can  there  be  a 
succession  of  members,  separated  from  each  other  by 
unity,  without  unity,  or  a  starting-point,  as  a  basis  ? 

It  is  safe,  therefore,  to  affirm  that  reason,  while  de- 
manding unity  in  the  source  of  all  beginnings,  is  unable 
to  rest  in  a  unity  which  is  conditioned,  changeable,  mind- 
less, purposeless.  It  demands  not  merely  that  which 
may  perhaps  be  self-existent;  but  it  demands  that  which 


MATTER;    ITS    ORIGIN.  219 

is  certainly  self-determined,  a  Personal  Will.  Its  First 
Cause  must  be  capable  of  furnishing  an  adequate  explan- 
ation of  the  existence  of  all  systems,  all  suns,  all  worlds, 
all  bodies — all  material  entities;  an  adequate  explanation 
of  all  motion,  all  force,  all  changes — all  physical  entities; 
an  adequate  explanation  of  all  growth,  all  decay,  all 
death — all  the  phenomena  of  plant  life,  of  animal  life,  of 
rational  life — consciousness,  reason,  emotion,  conscience, 
will,  personality.  Its  unmistakable  testimony  is,  The 
First  Cause  must  be  a  Living  Personality,  "  for  whom,  in 
whom,  and  to  whom  are  all  things."  Matter,  even  if  it 
could  be  proved  to  be  self-existent  and  eternal,  would 
not  answer  the  necessities  of  the  case.  The  human 
intellect  refuses  to  rest  in  any  first  principle  which 
is  not  absolutely  first,  in  any  reality  which  is  not  an 
Unconditioned  Reality,  in  any  unity  which  is  not  the 
Ultimate  Unity.  It  affirms  that  the  cause  of  causes 
must  be  the  personal  will  of  a  self-existent,  eternal  Being 
who  finds  all  motives  to  action  in  himself  alone — an  Un- 
conditioned Will  which  realizes  itself  in  self-potency, 
manifests  itself  in  efficiency,  and  finds  the  complement 
of  its  activity  in  a  created  universe.  Will,  not  matter, 
not  force,  not  thought,  is  the  Final  Cause  of  all  things. 

We  have  ascribed  an  unconditioned  will  to  Deity, 
though  some,  we  are  aware,  are  of  the  opinion  that  Deity, 
in  the  act  of  creation  at  least,  is  conditioned  by  the 
necessary  existences,  space,  time,  number.  We  prefer  to 
regard  Him  as  an  absolute,  unconditioned  First  Cause; 
and  to  regard  space  as  a  result  of  His  omnipresence, 
time  as  a  result  of  His  existence,  and  number  as  a  result 
of  His  unity.  This  opinion  is  environed  by  fewer  difficul- 
ties than  attach  to  the  theory  which  is  recommended  in 
its  stead.  If  we  regard  time,  space,  and  number  as  eter- 
nal, and  independent  of  Deity,  we  are  immediately  asked, 


220  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Why  then  may  not  matter  also  be  self-existent,  eternal, 
and  independent  ?  Though  it  is  evident  that  the  basis  of 
the  assumption  of  the  eternal  and  independent  existence 
of  the  latter  is  quite  different  from  the  basis  which  is  sup- 
posed to  support  belief  in  the  eternity  of  space,  still.it  can- 
not be  denied  that  the  moment  we  admit  that  there  can  be 
anything  uncaused,  save  the  First  Cause,  we  encourage 
the  assertion,  Then  matter  may  be  uncreated  and  eternal 
— consequently  the  universe  never  had  a  beginning.  And 
if  matter  may  be  eternal,  why  may  there  not  be  an  eter- 
nal order  of  the  universe  ?  And  if  order  is  an  eternal 
law,  why  may  there  not  be  an  infinite  series  of  changes 
each  evincing  adaptation  ?  If  the  physical  forces  have 
an  existence  independent  of  Deity,  why  may  not  the 
same  be  true  of  the  laws  of  life,  of  mind,  of  spirit,  as  also 
of  the  distinction  between  right  and  wrong. 

It  thus  appears  that  it  is  the  wisest  course,  as  well 
as  the  most  logical,  to  fix  upon  an  Unconditioned  Will  as 
the  origin  of  all  things. 

5.  If  matter  is  in  the  process  of  evolving  "  an  in- 
finite series"  of  changes,  then  the  universe  must  have 
originated  in  a  single  atom,  or  must  be  in  the  stage  of 
reducing  itself  to  a  single  atom.  The  series  of  changes 
cannot  be  infinite  unless  it  includes  changes  from  less 
quantity  to  greater  quantity,  and  from  less  potency  to 
greater  potency.  Indeed,  it  is  doubtful  whether  there 
can  be  a  series  which  is  neither  ascending  nor  descending. 
Certainly  such  a  series,  if  any  such  is  possible,  will  not 
include  an  infinite  number  of  changes;  and  if  it  is  said 
that  the  series  is  infinite,  though  the  changes  are  not 
infinite,  we  respond,  As  it  is  a  succession  of  individual 
changes  which  constitutes  the  series,  the  series  cannot 
be  infinite  unless  the  changes  are  infinite.  An  infinite 
series  of  changes  in  matter   must   therefore  include  all 


MATTER;    ITS    ORIGIN.  221 

possible  changes  between  an  atom  and  immensity  filled 
with  the  densest  metal  possible;  all  changes  between  an 
infinitesimal  unit  of  force  and  illimitable  force.  More- 
over, in  order  to  be  a  series,  the  succession  of  changes  must 
have  commenced  either  with  an  indivisible  atom  which 
would  have  ceased  to  be  matter  had  division  been  possi- 
ble, or  must  have  commenced  with  the  greatest  conceiv- 
able quantity.  The  latter  could  not  have  been  the  case; 
for  that  would  imply  successive  annihilations  of  material 
substance,  which  science  pronounces  impossible.  Besides, 
this  would  not  answer  the  purpose  of  the  evolutionist. 
It  would  not  be  evolution,  but  progressive  annihilation. 
Consequently,  "  the  infinite  series  "  of  changes  must  have 
commenced  with  an  atom  possessing  an  infinitesimal  unit 
of  force.  Not  matter  in  its  present  totality,  but  the  atom 
must  have  been  the  First  Cause  of  all  things.  Can  this 
be  denied  by  any  one  desirous  of  reaching  ultimate 
unity  ? 

This  unfortunate  phrase,  "  an  infinite  series  of  changes," 
promises  well,  but  on  examination  is  found  incompetent 
to  explain  the  problem  whose  solution  is  sought.  It  can- 
not begin  with  an  atom,  for  successive  changes  towards 
increased  quantity  is  an  absolute  creation — a  thing  pro- 
nounced inconceivable.  If  an  Infinite  Personality  can- 
not create  objectivity,  so  augmenting  the  quantum  of 
existence  in  the  universe,  then  "  an  infinite  series"  can- 
not. How  could  a  second  atom  come  into  being  ? 
The  phrase,  therefore,  explains  nothing,  unless  it  is 
understood  as  a  circumlocution  for  the  term  God.  By 
most  persons,  however,  the  monosyllable  is  considered 
preferable. 

6.  The  majority  of  the  human  race  have  maintained 
that  reason  necessitates  belief  in  the  existence  of  a 
First    Cause    independent    of    matter,    a    supramundane 


222  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Personality.  Plato  exclaims,  "  Mind  is  king  of  heaven 
and  earth."  "  God  is  the  most  excellent  of  causes." 
Nearly  all  languages,  even  those  of  savages,  have  a  term 
whose  content  is  the  intuitive  conviction  that  there  is  a 
Divine  Personality  back  of  nature.  Polytheism,  with  its 
gods  many,  generally  has  one  who  is  regarded  as  the 
Father  of  all  the  divinities,  the  Source  of  all  existence, 
all  potency,  all  causality,  all  personality,  a  Jupiter  Om- 
nipotens.  With  the  christian  theist  the  conception  of 
Deity  embraces  independent  existence,  unlimited  power, 
unconditioned  will-force,  perfect  personality. 

We  have  the  right  to  present  the  universality  of  this 
belief  as  evidence  that  it  may  be  regarded  as  reasonable, 
and  as  environed  by  fewer  difficulties  than  any  rival 
theory.  It  is  indeed  the  broadest  conception  that  ever 
entered  the  mind  of  man.  The  reasons,  therefore,  which 
impel  to  its  reception  must  be  potent. 

II.  Matter  is  an  evolution  from  force. 

Force  is  the  only  reality.  In  the  beginning  there  was 
force — nothing  else. 

Nearly  or  quite  all  the  arguments  which  we  have  out- 
lined, in  the  discussion  of  the  theory  that  matter  is  the 
source  of  all  being,  apply  with  equal  cogency  to  the 
theory  that  force  is  the  First  Cause,  verbis  mutatis.  We 
pause  long  enough,  however,  for  the  succinct  enumeration 
of  a  few  others. 

I.  Since  the  term  force,  as  here  employed,  does  not 
designate  a  quality,  but  an  abstract  reality;  and  since 
reason  requires  that  the  Final  Cause  shall  be  a  unity, 
and  not  a  duality;  and  since,  consequently,  there  was 
originally  no  matter  in  the  universe, — force  must  be 
regarded  as  adequate  to  the  origination  of  something 
external  to  itself,  and  of  a  nature  different  from  its  own. 
How  shall  it  proceed  ? 


MATTER;    ITS    ORIGIN.  223 

{a)  It  cannot  evolve  matter  from  itself,  for  by 
hypothesis  it  is  not  matter;  and  there  can  be  no  evolu- 
tion unless  there  is  a  preceding  involution. 

(b)  It  could  not  have  gathered  objectivity  from  the 
limitless  abysses  of  uncreated  space,  and  from  this  fash- 
ioned a  universe;  for,  by  supposition,  there  was  nothing  in 
existence  save  force. 

(c)  It  could  not,  by  differentiating  through  "  an 
infinite  series,"  acquire  the  power  of  originating  matter, 
for  no  one  member  of  the  series  could  impart  a  power 
which  it  did  not  itself  possess. 

2.  Since,  by  concession,  force  is  not  matter,  the 
theory  has  no  advantage  over  that  which  it  is  intended 
to  displace;  nay,  it  is  at  a  disadvantage.  It  leaves  us  to 
believe  in  absolute  creation,  which  is  pronounced  incon- 
ceivable; and  it  does  not  present  us  an  Intelligent  Per- 
sonal Will  as  the  Creator,  but  blind,  mindless,  purpose- 
less force. 

3.  There  are  not  only  individual  forces,  closely  cor- 
related one  to  the  other,  but  there  are  laws  of  force, 
each  manifesting  intelligent  design.  Observing  every- 
where the  sway  of  laws  which  evince  wisdom,  will  any 
one  say  that  the  preponderance  of  probability  is  against 
the  hypothesis  of  a  Lawgiver  ?  Who  then  enacted  them  ? 
Who  maintains  them  ?  Blind  force  knows  nothing  about 
devising  intelligent  laws.  Consequently,  in  the  presence 
of  the  fact  that  law  holds  universal  sway,  I  am  impelled 
to  exclaim:  There  must  be  a  Being  from  whom  law 
emanates.  An  atheist  I  cannot  be  without  doing  vio- 
lence to  reason. 

When  one  contemplates  power  as  manifest  in  the 
volcano  or  in  the  earthquake;  when  he  learns  that  the 
nebula  known  as  the  Milky  Way  is  moving  through  space 
with  its  millions  of  suns  and  their  accompanying  planets, 


224  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

at  the  average  rate  of  three  thousand  miles  a  minute,  and 
that  the  planet  Jupiter,  fourteen  hundred  times  larger 
than  the  earth,  is  whirled  forwards  at  the  rate  of  thirty 
thousand  miles  per  hour,  and  that  the  comet  of  1680  is 
traveling  with  the  velocity  of  eight  hundred  and  eighty- 
four  thousand  miles  an  hour,— he  is  disposed  to  con- 
clude that  if  there  were  no  Intelligent  Will  back  of  the 
physical  forces  they  might  cause  infinite  confusion,  if 
indeed  they  did  not  resolve  the  universe  into  its  orig- 
inal chaotic  state.  After  observing  evidences  of  design 
in  the  subordination  of  forces  to  the  accomplishment  of 
a  definite  purpose,  it  requires  hardihood  to  affirm  that  the 
preponderance  of  evidence  favors  atheism. 

In  the  presence  of  facts,  we  are  indisposed  to  present 
labored  arguments  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the 
foundations  of  atheism.  To  attempt  this,  seems  to  us 
like  reasoning  to  prove  that  man  is  possessed  of  reason- 
ing powers;  like  piling  up  syllogisms  to  prove  one's  per- 
sonal existence. 

As  we  shall  attempt  to  show  in  the  succeeding  chapter, 
most  physicists  of  the  present  day  are  disposed  to  regard 
the  physical  forces — all  force — as  the  immanence  of  the 
Divine  Will.  The  unconditioned  will  of  Deity  is  consid- 
ered the  fountain-head  of  all  energy. 

III.  Matter  is  embodied  thought. 

This  theory,  which  gives  rise  to  pantheism  in  its  vari- 
ous forms,  regards  matter  as  the  ceaselessly  varying,  ever- 
living  garment  of  the  Almighty;  and  persists  in  asserting 
that  God  has  no  conscious  existence  outside  of,  over  and 
above,  nature.  It  prides  itself  in  its  antiquity,  reminding 
us  that  ancient  religious  hymns  conceive  of  the  world  as 
the  robes  of  the  Divinity,  from  whose  ponderous  body 
all  things  are  produced.  We  need  not  trouble  the  reader 
with  an  attempted  refutation  of  pantheism. 


MATTER;    ITS    ORIGIN.  225 

Those  who  deny  the  existence  of  a  God,  the  Creator 
of  all  things,  have  not  as  yet  satisfactorily  answered 
the  question,  Whence  came  matter  ?  though  they  have 
presented  the  world  with  some  bold  speculations,  some 
captivating  rhetoric,  some  splendid  exhibitions  of  man's 
disposition  to  form  generalizations,  and  a  little  reasoning 
that  seems  on  the  surface  quite  plausible. 

IV.  "  God  created  all  things  of  nothing  by 

THE   WORD    OF    HlS   POWER." 

To  this  theory  it  has  been  objected: — 

i.  It  is  inconceivable.  "  Ex  nihilo  nihil  fit" — from 
nothing,  nothing  can  come — is  a  self-evident  proposition, 
and  should  be  accepted  as  such  by  every  human  being. 
The  only  production  of  nothingness  is  nothing.  No 
substance,  material  or  immaterial,  can  come  into  being 
from  the  non-existent.  There  are  two  fundamental  prin- 
ciples in  science, — no  substantive  entity,  whether  corpo- 
real or  incorporeal,  can  cease  to  exist,  though  it  may  pass 
through  an  indefinite  number  of  changes;  nor  can  it 
come  into  existence  from  nothingness,  even  by  the  aid 
of  omnipotent  power  and  omniscient  intelligence.  The 
axiom,  "  Ex  nihilo  nihil  fit;  in  nihilum  nil  posse  reverti" — 
from  nothing,  nothing  can  come;  to  annihilation,  nothing 
can  be  reduced — is  to  be  taken  not  merely  as  announcing 
that  no  effect  can  occur  without  an  adequate  cause,  but 
as  affirming  that  absolute  creation  and  absolute  annihil- 
ation are  inconceivable,  and  consequently  are  of  course 
impossible  even  to  limitless  power  and  infinite  intelli- 
gence. They  who  accept  the  hypothesis  of  an  uncreated 
and  consequently  self-existent,  eternal  God,  are  com- 
pelled to  concede  that  even  with  Him  there  are  impos- 
sibilities. He  cannot  lie.  He  cannot  make  the  three 
angles  of  a  triangle  equal  to  less  or  more  than  two  right 
angles;  nor  the  square  of  the  hypothenuse  of  a  right- 


226  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

angled  triangle  else  than  equal  to  the  sum  of  the  squares 
of  the  other  two  sides;  nor  two  and  two  anything  else 
than  four;  nor  wrong  right;  nor  can  He  annihilate  space, 
or  duration,  or  the  relations  between  abstract  numbers. 

2.  That  God  created  all  things  out  of  nothing  is  not 
asserted  in  Scriptures.  With  the  exception  of  the  first 
verse  there  is  no  diversity  of  opinion  in  reference  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis.  The  word 
"  bara,"  "  create,"  elsewhere  than  in  the  first  verse,  con- 
fessedly means  to  form  or  fashion  from  pre-existing  mate- 
rials. "  God  created  [bara]  great  whales" — it  is  not 
assumed  that  He  created  them  from  nothing.  "  God 
created  [bara]  man  in  His  own  image;"  that  is,  "  The 
Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life;  and  man 
became  a  living  soul"  (Gen.  i.  21,  27;  ii.  7);  his  body 
and  his  soul  were  fashioned  from  substances  previously 
existent.  The  word  "  bara"  elsewhere  in  Scripture  does 
not  mean  to  originate  de  novo.  "  Create  in  me  a  clean 
heart."  "  I  form  the  light  and  create  darkness."  "  I 
make  peace  and  create  evil."  "  I  create  the  fruit  of  the 
lips"  (Ps.  Ii.  10;  Isa.  xlv.  7;  lvii.  19).  It  is  not  meant 
that  "  a  clean  heart,"  "  darkness,"  "  evil,"  and  "  the  fruit 
of  the  lips"  are  "created"  by  an  Almighty  Divine  Will 
from  nothingness. 

Certainly  there  was  such  a  thing  as  progress  in  cre- 
ation, that  is,  in  the  formation  of  the  earth,  and  in  the 
production  of  vegetable  and  animal  existences.  Through 
a  protracted  period  of  time  the  earth  was  in  preparation 
to  become  the  dwelling-place  of  man.  "  The  earth  was 
without  form  and  void;  and  darkness  was  upon  the  face 
of  the  deep;  and  the  spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face 
of  the  waters."  After  furnishing  this  account  of  the 
method  in  which  the  earth  was  formed,  the  sacred  his- 


MATTER;    ITS    ORIGIN.  227 

torian  proceeds  to  recount  the  successive  steps  in  medi- 
ate creation,  the  production  of  light,  of  an  enveloping 
atmosphere,  of  continents  and  oceans,  of  vegetable 
organisms,  of  animal  existences,  finally  of  man — a  pro- 
gressive work  upon  pre-existing  materials.  By  what 
right,  therefore,  do  any  assume  that  "  create"  in  the  first 
verse  means  bringing  instantaneously  into  existence 
from  nothingness  by  a  simple  fiat  of  the  Divine  Will  ? 
Why  adopt  an  interpretation  which  exacts  belief  in 
that  which  is  inconceivable,  absolute  creation  ?  Since 
the  Bible  affirms,  "  In  thy  book  all  my  members  were 
written,  which  in  continuance  were  fashioned,  when  as 
yet  there  was  none  of  them,"  though  man  is  capable 
of  reproduction;  since  God  is  frequently  represented  as 
being  the  Maker  of  all  that  the  earth,  the  air,  and  the  sea 
produce  in  each  recurring  season,  though  they  are  results 
of  secondary  causes  resident  in  existing  substances, — why 
adopt  an  hypothesis  which  renders  it  difficult  for  those 
possessing  a  scientific  turn  of  mind  to  accept  the  Bible 
as  a  supernatural  revelation  ?  Better  acknowledge  that 
the  creeds,  which  so  positively  affirm  that  God  created 
all  things  out  of  nothing,  are  human  inventions  based 
upon  an  erroneous  interpretation  of  the  Word. 

It  is  argued:  The  cosmogonies  of  Scripture,  which  are 
three  in  number,  and  are,  as  Mr.  George  Smith  affirms, 
closely  related  to  those  of  Babylon — in  arrangement, 
in  the  introduction  of  God  speaking,  in  the  notion  of  a 
primeval  chaos,  in  pronouncing  everything  "  very  good," 
in  the  assignment  of  stars  as  determining  the  years,  etc., — 
were  uniformly  interpreted  by  the  Jews  till  the  Hellenic 
period,  not  as  teaching  that  all  things  were  made  from 
nothing,  but  as  affirming  that  God  fashioned  existing 
things  from  pre-existing  substances.  It  is  true  that  the 
Aryan  cosmogony,  as  found  in  the  Avesta,  attributes  the 


228  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

creation  of  all  things  to  Ahura-mazda  (Ormuzd),  not 
from  pre-existing  materials,  but  from  nothingness.  Are 
we  to  remain,  till  the  end  of  time,  the  besotted  dupes  of 
those  who  lived  ere  the  dawn  of  science  ? 

It  is  further  said:  Even  if  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  with  the  facts  of  science,  still  we 
are  not  called  upon  to  surrender  faith  in  Scripture.  We 
merely  surrender  the  theories  of  verbal  and  plenary 
inspiration.  The  Bible  is  a  spiritual  book  and  addresses 
itself  to  man's  spirit.  Its  assertions  regarding  scientific 
facts  may  be  radically  erroneous,  frequently  are:  this 
does  not  invalidate  the  inspired  spiritual  truths  which  are 
taught  and  were  designed  to  be  taught.  If  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis,  scientifically  considered,  is  funda- 
mentally wrong,  it  is  not  necessarily  untrue.  The  les- 
sons it  teaches  are  eternally  true.  It  announces  spiritual 
principles;  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead;  the  Divine  Will 
the  source  of  all  things  terrestrial;  everything  "good"  is 
of  slow  growth;  the  world  is  advancing,  the  lower  giving 
place  to  the  higher;  the  turmoil  of  the  present  will  be 
succeeded  by  the  sabbatic  rest  of  the  future;  to-day's 
labor  brings  to-morrow's  recompense;  man,  weak  and 
sinful  as  he  is,  is  fashioned  in  God's  image. 

3.  The  doctrine  that  in  the  dawn  of  time  an  Eternal 
God  created  that  which  had  no  existence  in  eternity,  is 
inconsistent  with  the  true  idea  of  Deity.  Absolute  crea- 
tion supposes  a  distinction  between  will  and  power,  be- 
tween determination  and  efficiency.  In  God  there  is,  and 
can  be,  no  distinction  between  essence  and  attributes, 
between  ability  and  actuality.  The  assumption  that 
things  began  to  exist  implies  a  change  in  God  from  an  in- 
activity, stretching  backwards  into  eternity,  to  an  activity 
originating  in  time.  If  things  external  to  Him  owe  their 
existence   to   His    will,   they   must    be    regarded    as    an 


MATTER;    ITS    ORIGIN.  229 

eternal  effect.  "  In  the  beginning"  means  from  eternity. 
The  earth  and  the  heavens  are  an  eternal  creation.  Ac- 
cordingly, Origen,  while  attributing  the  beginning  of  the 
universe  to  the  volition  of  God,  maintained,  nevertheless, 
that  it  was  eternal.  The  same  opinion  has  been  held  by 
many  eminent  theologians  and  metaphysicians.  It  is  com- 
mon to  all  monists,  or  those  who  maintain  that  there  is 
only  one  substance  in  the  universe.  Some  theologians, 
even  some  who  are  regarded  as  strictly  orthodox,  con- 
cede that  God  and  the  universe  are  so  intimately  and 
necessarily  interblended  that  the  latter  must  have  existed 
from  eternity. 

In  the  judgment  of  many,  these  objections  are  suffi- 
ciently refuted  by  saying: — 

I.  We  have  no  right  to  assume  that  we  can  under- 
stand the  Almighty  unto  perfection.  Because  it  is  im- 
possible for  man  to  make  "  something  "  from  "  nothing," 
or  because  it  is  regarded  by  some  as  inconceivable — being 
beyond  the  reach  of  finite  comprehension  that  Omnipo- 
tence could  create  a  universe  from  "  nothingness," — it  does 
not  follow  that  there  is  any  impossibility,  not  even  that 
there  is  any  strong  improbability,  in  God's  creating  ex 
niliilo, — from  nothing, — the  material  element  or  elements 
from  which  He  subsequently  formed  the  world  and  all 
things  therein. 

Besides,  to  say  that  God  created  all  things  from  noth- 
ing is  an  unfortunate  and  unwarrantable  mode  of  expres- 
sion. It  simply  affirms  that  there  was  no  objectivity 
which  He  transmuted  into  worlds.  It  does  not  lay  em- 
phasis on  the  fact  that  His  will  is  infinite  in  power,  that 
there  is  subjective  efficiency  adequate  to  the  production 
of  any  effect  which  He  determines  to  produce,  that,  being 
an  unconditioned  First  Cause,  neither  time,  nor  space,  nor 
number,  nor  matter  was  a  necessary  condition   to  the 


230  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

exercise  of  His  omnipotent  will.  "  He  spake  and  it  was 
done."  No  cause,  save  His  own  fiat,  was  necessary:  no 
condition,  save  His  own  existence,  was  needed.  Every- 
thing is  an  effect  of  His  illimitable  power  brought  into  ex- 
ercise by  His  own  irresistible  will.  Absolute  personality, 
an  eternally  self-existent,  self-conscious,  self-sufficient 
Being, — this  is  the  primal  conception  in  the  Biblical  ac- 
count of  creation.  Consequently,  though,  as  we  are  pre- 
pared to  admit,  the  original  expressions  employed  in  the 
Mosaic  cosmogonies  yield  no  conclusive  results,  we  are 
nevertheless  justified  in  affirming:  (a)  Absolute  creation 
was  an  act  to  which  God  was  determined  by  no  neces- 
sary existences  extraneous  to  Himself;  {b)  It  was  an  act 
to  which  He  was  determined  by  no  inherent  necessity  of 
His  own  nature.  He  willed  to  create;  beyond  that  we 
cannot  go.  He  was  just,  because  He  willed  to  be.  He 
was  good,  because  He  willed  to  be.  He  approved  right  and 
condemned  wrong,  because  He  willed  to  do  so;  not  from 
any  necessity  external  to  His  own  moral  nature,  other- 
wise He  would  not  be  worthy  of  worship,  for  compelled 
goodness  is  not  deserving  of  praise.  It  thus  becomes 
apparent  that  His  own  unconditioned  will  must  be  the 
source  of  everything.  That  which  is  objective  to  self  may 
be  necessary  to  the  conception  of  finite  personality,  but  it 
cannot  be  necessary  to  the  conception  of  absolute  or  infinite 
personality.  Deity  needed  nothing  external  toself  to  ren- 
der Him  self-complete.  His  unconditioned  power,  brought 
into  exercise  by  His  unconditioned  will,  was  the  efficient 
cause  of  whatever  has  been,  is,  or  shall  be.  His  continued 
existence  was  the  cause  of  time.  His  omnipresence  was 
the  cause  of  space.  His  unity  was  the  cause  of  number. 
His  will  was  the  cause  of  the  primordial  elements,  and  of 
their  attributes.  His  will  determined  the  forms  into  which 
He  should  fashion  these  original  elementary  substances. 


MATTER;    ITS    ORIGIN.  231 

Perhaps,  however,  theists  act  more  wisely  in  imitating 
the  example  of  Prof.  J.  Clerk  Maxwell.  He  says,  Encyc. 
Brit.,  art.  "Atom": — 

M  Science  is  incompetent  to  reason  upon  the  creation  of  matter  itself  out  of 
nothing.  We  have  reached  the  limits  of  our  thinking  faculties  when  we  have 
admitted  that  because  matter  cannot  be  eternal  and  self-existent,  it  must  have 
been  created.  It  is  only  when  we  contemplate,  not  matter  in  itself,  but  the 
form  in  which  it  actually  exists  that  our  mind  finds  something  on  which  it  can 
lay  hold." 

"That  matter,  as  such,  should  have  certain  fundamental  properties,  that  it 
should  have  a  continuous  existence  in  space  and  time,  that  all  actions  should 
be  between  two  portions  of  matter,  and  so  on,  are  truths  which  may,  for  aught 
we  know,  be  truths  of  the  kind  which  metaphysicians  call  necessary.  We  can 
use  our  knowledge  of  such  truths  for  purposes  of  deduction,  but  we  have  no 
data  for  speculating  on  their  origin." 

Antecedent  to  the  present  arrangements  of  nature, 
there  was  nothing,  says  the  scientist;  for  advanced  science 
has  repudiated  the  idea  of  an  endless  succession  of  phe- 
nomena by  proving  that  everything  in  the  present  uni- 
verse must  have  had  a  beginning,  thereby  rendering  it 
probable  that  the  primordial  elements  could  not  have 
been  eternal.  Yes,  says  the  theologian;  prior  to  the 
existing  order  of  things,  which  indeed  runs  back  into  the 
buried  past,  there  was  nothing  extraneous  to  Deity  save 
the  necessary  results  of  His  own  existence.  Space  was, 
because  God  was.  Duration  was,  because  God  was. 
Number  was,  because  God  was.  Justice  was — in  Deity. 
Law  was — in  Deity.  Power  was — in  Deity.  Goodness 
was — in  Deity.     Holiness  was — in  Deity. 

"In  the  beginning"  there  were  atoms,  says  the 
scientist.  Yes,  responds  the  theologian;  for  God  created 
them  in  the  beginning  of  the  succession  of  changes  which 
the  universe  has  undergone.  In  eternity,  God:  naught 
else. 

"  In   the   beginning "   force   was,   says   the   scientist. 


232  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Yes,  says  the  theologian;  force  by  the  divine  fiat  was  as- 
sociated with  matter.  All  forces  have  their  origin  in 
the  Divine  Will — they  are  simply  an  expression  of  His 
determinations. 

2.  The  account  of  creation,  as  presented  in  the  Bible, 
is  inconsistent  with  the  assumption  that  "create  "  (bara) 
uniformly  means  "to  form,"  " to  fashion."  Clarke,  Lange, 
Parkhurst  and  Delitzsch,  no  mean  authorities,  assert  that 
"  bara  "  means  to  originate  de  novo.  Others,  as  Pusey, 
Kitto,  and  Abenezra,  affirm  that  it  may  mean  either 
immediate  creation  or  mediate  creation — either  creatio 
prima,  immediata;  or  creatio  mediata,  formativa.  "  By 
the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made  "  (Ps.  xxxiii. 
6).  "  By  Him  were  all  things  created,  that  are  in  heaven, 
and  that  are  on  earth,  visible  and  invisible  ...  all  things 
were  created  by  Him  and  for  Him;  and  He  is  before  all 
things,  and  by  Him  all  things  consist"  (Col.  i.  16,  17). 
The  expression  "all  things"  includes  the  original  ele- 
ment— everything  save  God  Himself.  There  could,  there- 
fore, have  been  no  pre-existing  substance,  no  primordial 
elements. 

Besides,  the  world — indeed  everything  extraneous  to 
Deity — is  said  to  have  had  a  beginning.  "  Of  old  hast 
thou  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth:  and  the  heavens 
are  the  work  of  thy  hands  "  (Ps.  cii.  25).  "Before  the 
mountains  were  brought  forth,  or  ever  thou  hadst  formed 
the  earth  and  the  world,  even  from  everlasting  to  ever- 
lasting, thou  art  God"  (Ps.  xc.  2).  Christ  speaks  of  the 
glory  He  had  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was.  All 
things,  then,  had  a  beginning;  and  since  no  mention  is 
made  of  pre-existing  matter  from  which  things  terrestrial 
were  formed,  they  must  have  been  created  de  novo. 
Moreover,  since  God  is  infinite,  everything  must  have 
originated  in   His   volition;    since  He  is  unconditioned, 


MATTER;    ITS    ORIGIN.  233 

everything  must  be  dependent  upon  Him.  Absolute 
creation  is  a  corollary  from  the  demonstrated  theorem,  An 
extra-mundane  God  exists.  Consequently,  unless  we  are 
prepared  to  concede  "  that  God  created,  or  made  of  noth- 
ing, the  world  and  all  things  therein,"  the  substance  of 
which  it  is  composed  included,  we  are  logically  driven  to 
adopt  either  atheism  or  some  form  of  pantheism. 

By  many  eminent  lexicographers  it  is  asserted  that 
"  ayth,"  a  word  found  in  Genesis  i.  I,  means  "  very  sub- 
stance," "real  essence."  If  this  is  its  meaning,  the  verse 
may  be  translated:  M  In  the  beginning  God  brought  into 
being  (bara)  the  essence  (ayth)  of  the  heavens  and  the 
earth." 

In  no  case,  if  the  testimony  of  the  most  distinguished 
scholars  has  any  weight,  are  we  unauthorized  in  asserting 
that  the  verse  may  affirm,  and  most  probably  does  affirm, 
that  God  created  matter  de  novo,  by  a  simple  volition. 

3.  If  God  does  nothing,  and  has  done  nothing,  except 
what  He  did  in  eternity,  then  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
divine  interposition.  If  there  is  no  distinction  between 
ability  and  actuality,  between  power  and  efficiency,  then 
cause  and  effect  are  identical:  there  can  be  no  un- 
expended cause.  If  the  purpose  of  an  eternal  God  is  , 
exactly  equivalent  to  the  eternal  consummation  of  that 
purpose,  then  everything  that  occurs  in  time  must  either 
have  occurred  in  eternity  or  must  be  independent  of  the 
will  of  Deity.  So  far  as  its  effect  upon  our  lives  is  con- 
cerned, we  may  as  well  avow  ourselves  atheists,  as  to 
adopt  the  theory  that  there  is  no  distinction  between 
power  and  efficiency,  that  what  God  is  capable  of  doing, 
and  all  He  ever  purposed  to  do,  or  can  purpose  to  do, 
must  have  been  done  from  eternity.  If  we  are  to  believe 
that  because  God  had  the  power  and  the  purpose  to 
create,  therefore  creation  must  be  eternal,  then  we  are 


234  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

forced  to  conclude  that  since  what  shall  happen  to 
us  to-morrow  could  not  have  happened  in  eternity, 
therefore  it  must  be  independent  of  the  Divine  Will. 

Nor  is  change  in  God  a  legitimate  inference  from  the 
current  theory  that  material  things  had  a  beginning.  It 
is  not  asserted  that  there  was  any  change  in  His  purpose, 
but  simply  that  His  purpose  was  consummated  in  time. 
An  eternal  purpose  to  create  is  not  an  eternal  creation; 
nor  is  the  creation  of  the  world  in  time  conclusive  evi- 
dence that  the  original  purpose  was  to  create  it  from 
eternity,  which  purpose  was  changed  into  that  of  creating 
it  in  time.  The  statement  that  He  purposed  from  eternity 
to  create  is  by  no  means  identical  with  the  statement 
that  He  purposed  to  create  from  eternity;  and  to  assert: 
If  the  universe  is  not  eternal,  God  must  have  been  inac- 
tive prior  to  creation, — is  a  gratuitous  assumption  that 
activity  must  produce  the  same  class  of  effects.  "  Who 
by  searching  can  find  out  the  Almighty  unto  perfection  ?" 
There  are  limits  to  human  reason.  God  is  confessedly 
unfathomable.  His  existence  and  His  essential  attributes 
may  be  known,  however.  The  ultimate  source  of  all 
being,  all  power,  all  life,  is  inscrutable — past  human 
.  comprehension.  "  Christ  is  the  visible  image  of  the 
Invisible  God." 

The  above  line  of  reasoning,  though  sufficiently 
powerful  in  the  minds  of  many  to  remove  all  objec- 
tions to  the  accepted  doctrine  of  creation,  is  consid- 
ered inadequate  by  others,  even  by  many  speculative 
theologians.  To  the  question,  Whence  came  matter? 
they  prefer  to  answer: — 

V.  Matter  is  an  effluence  from  Deity. 

This  theory,  as  is  evident,  may  exist  under  two 
forms — 

I.  Matter  may  be  regarded  as  a  necessary  and  uncon- 


MATTER;    ITS    ORIGIN.  235 

scious  emanation  from  the  divine  nature.  In  this  aspect, 
the  theory  may  easily  glide  into  pantheism  or  into  a  kind 
of  evolution  which  cannot  be  regarded  as  theistic. 

2.  Matter  may  be  regarded  as  an  effluence  from  Deity, 
produced  by  the  exercise  of  His  own  will.  It  is,  as  it 
were,  the  self-evolved  fringings  of  His  own  eternal  sub- 
stance; the  visible  manifestation,  self-willed,  of  an  invis- 
ible, incomprehensible,  and  otherwise  unknowable  spirit; 
the  outer,  self-unfolded,  effluent,  and  probably  eternal 
robes  of  His  infinite,  omnipotent,  omniscient,  and  uncon- 
ditioned personality. 

It  is  in  the  latter  sense  that  the  theory  is  held  by 
the  authors  of  The  Unseen  Universe,  by  the  Rev.  Joseph 
Cook,  by  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton,  and  others. 

The  authors  of  The  Unseen  Universe  say: — 

"  This  production  was,  as  far  as  we  can  judge,  a  sporadic  or  abrupt  act,  and 
the  substance  produced — that  is  to  say,  the  atoms  which  form  the  material 
substratum  of  the  present  universe — bears,  from  its  uniformity  of  constitution, 
all  the  marks  of  being  a  manufactured  article." 

"The  argument  is  in  favor  of  the  production  of  the  visible  universe  by 
means  of  an  intelligent  agency  residing  in  the  invisible  universe." 

"  But  again,  let  us  realize  the  position  in  which  we  are  placed  by  the  prin- 
ciple of  continuity — we  are  led  by  it  not  only  to  regard  the  invisible  universe  as 
having  existed  before  the  present  one,  but  the  same  principle  drives  us  to 
acknowledge  its  existence  in  some  form  as  a  universe  from  eternity." 

"As  far  as  we  can  judge  the  visible  universe — the  universe  of  worlds — is 
not  eternal,  while,  however,  the  invisible  universe  is  necessarily  eternal." — The 
Unseen  Univers",  pp.  155,  156,  174. 

Rev.  Dr.  Joseph  Cook  affirms: — 

"  It  is  not  my  opinion  that  everything  was  created  from  nothing.  ...  I 
suppose  Almighty  God  evolves  the  seen  universe  of  matter  and  the  unseen  uni- 
verse of  finite  force  from  Himself.  My  creed  is  the  reverse  of  pantheism." — 
Lectures  on  Heredity,  pp .  1 20,  121." 

"  Matter  is  an  effluence  of  the  divine  nature,  and  so  is  all  finite  mind, 
and  thus  the  universe  is  one  in  its  present  ground  of  existence  and  in  the 
Final  Cause.  In  a  better  age,  science,  lighting  her  lamp  at  that  Higher 
Unity,  will  teach  that  although  He,  whom  we  dare  not  name,  transcends  all 


236  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

natural  laws,  they  are,  through  His  Immanence,  literally  God,  who  was,  and 
is,  and  is  to  come.  Science  does  this  already  for  all  who  think  clearly." — 
Biology,  p.  270. 

Sir  Wm.  Hamilton  employs  the  following  language: — 

"But  if  you  can  thus  conceive  neither  the  absolute  commencement  nor  the 
absolute  termination  of  anything  that  is  once  thought  to  exist,  try,  on  the  other 
hand,  if  you  can  conceive  the  opposite  alternative  of  infinite  non-commencement, 
of  infinite  non-termination.     To  this  you  are  equally  impotent." 

"  But  what  is  a  creation  ?  It  is  not  the  springing  of  nothing  into  something. 
Far  from  it: — it  is  conceived,  and  is  by  us  conceivable,  merely  as  the  evolution 
of  a  new  form  of  existence,  by  the  fiat  of  the  Deity.  Let  us  suppose  the  very 
crisis  of  creation.  Can  we  realize  it  to  ourselves,  in  thought,  that  the  moment 
after  the  universe  came  into  manifested  being,  there  was  a  larger  complement 
of  existence  in  the  universe  and  its  Author  together,  than  there  was  the  mo- 
ment before,  in  the  Deity  Himself  alone  ?  This  we  cannot  imagine.  .  .  .  All 
that  there  is  now  actually  of  existence  in  the  universe,  we  conceive  as  having 
virtually" existed,  prior  to  creation,  in  the  Creator." 

"  Change  must  be  within  existence:  it  must  be  merely  of  phenomenal  existence. 
Since  change  can  be  for  us  only  as  it  appears  to  us — only  as  it  is  known  by  us; 
and  we  cannot  know,  we  cannot  think,  a  change  either  from  non-existence  to 
existence,  or  from  existence  to  non-exislence;  the  change  must  be  from  substance 
to  substance:  but  substances,  apart  from  phenomena,  are  inconceivable,  as  phe- 
nomena are  inconceivable  apart  from  substances.  For  thought  requires  as  its 
condition  the  correlatives  both  of  an  appearing  and  of  something  that  appears." 
— Hamilton's  Metaphysics,  pp.  549,  553,  692. 

God  evolved  all  things  out  of  His  own  eternal  self- 
existent  substance.  To  pass  from  the  conditioned  to  the 
unconditioned — from  finite  conceptions  to  infinite  con- 
ceptions—  is  beyond  the  power  of  the  human  intellect. 
In  the  backward  stretch  we  must  stop  somewhere;  and 
though  it  is  the  duty  of  the  scientist  to  remove  the  First 
Cause  to  a  distance  as  remote  as  possible;  and  though  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  theologian  to  prove  that,  however 
distant  may  be  the  pavilion  in  which  He  hides  Himself, 
His  existence  is  an  eternal  fact,  evidenced  by  the  growing 
grass  and  by  the  falling  sparrow — it  is  possible  for  the 
scientists  and  the  theologian  to  rest  in  this  as  an  ultimate 


MATTER;    ITS    ORIGIN:  237 

fact  in  reference  to  the  origin  of  matter, — It  is  an  effluence 
from  the  Infinite  One. 

Evidences  are  already  accumulating,  however,  that 
even  if  theology  should  content  herself  in  the  acceptance 
of  this  theory,  science  would  not.  Boscovitch  and  others 
rid  themselves  of  the  idea  that  matter  is  substance  or 
stuff,  regarding  it  as  merely  a  phenomenon  of  force.  For 
the  solid  vortex-atom  of  Lucretius,  and  for  the  mobile 
vortex-atom  of  Thomson  and  Helmholtz,  they  substitute 
a  geometrical  point,  a  center  of  energy. 

If  it  shall  be  proved  that  matter  is  a  simple  and 
necessary  phenomenon  of  force,  and  that  consequently  it 
needs  no  other  originator,  being  as  really  a  phenomenon 
of  force  as  extension  and  weight  are  phenomena  of 
matter,  then  the  theist  is  prepared  to  assert,  and  to  prove, 
as  we  believe,  that  force  is  the  simple  exponent  of  an 
Infinite  Personal  Will,  and  is  increatable,  indestructible, 
inaugmentable,  and  indiminishable.  Of  course,  if  it  is 
impossible  to  create  matter  or  to  annihilate  matter,  and 
consequently  impossible  to  either  augment  or  diminish 
its  quantity,  it  is  certainly  no  less  impossible  to  cre- 
ate or  annihilate  force,  and  therefore  impossible  to 
either  increase  or  lessen  its  sum.  Consequently,  the 
First  Cause,  an  Unconditioned  Will,  is  all  and  in  all. 
There  is  but  one  mystery,  the  existence  of  God:  all 
other  mysteries  resolve  themselves  into  this. 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

CONTINUITY. 

HAVING  endeavored  to  ascertain  what  is  the  remotest 
principle  in  the  order  of  analytic  thought,  and  having 
shown,  as  we  apprehend,  that  it  is,  and  must  be,  the 
Unconditioned  Will  of  Deity,  we  now  address  ourselves 
to  the  following  questions: — 

I.  From  the  initial  act  of  absolute  creation  has  there 
been  a  continuous,  uniform  progression,  or  have  there 
been  occasional  breaks,  creative  epochs,  new  beginnings  ? 

II.  Admitting  that  the  general  continuity  is  a  neces- 
sary result  of  the  continued  operation  of  physical  causes, 
how  are  we  to  account  for  the  "  new  beginnings  "  ? 

There  was  a  time  in  the  remote  past,  scientists  tell 
us,  when  the  chaotic  materials  which  ultimately  formed 
the  solar  system  were  but  an  undivided  portion  of  those 
material  elements  which  pervaded  immensity.  Was  there 
no  break  in  continuity  when  a  definite  portion  of  these 
began  to  evolve  into  the  existing  solar  system  ?  What 
force  separated  them  from  the  limitless  ocean  of  matter  ? 

There  was  a  time  when  the  earth  had  as  yet  no  indi- 
vidual existence,  its  elements  being  an  indistinguishable 
part  of  the  heaving  sea  of  homogeneous  matter  which 
filled  the  space  now  occupied  by  the  solar  system — at 
least  an  equal  space,  not  the  same,  for  the  system  in  its 
totality  is  moving  incessantly, — a  space  whose  diametec 
is  five  billions  of  miles.     Was   there   no  break  in  con- 


CONTINUITY.  239 

tinuity,  when  a  section  of  this  mass  set  up  for  itself? 
What  new  force  came  into  operation  ?  or  how  came 
pre-existing  forces  to  differentiate  ? 

The  earth,  or  rather  the  material  which  was  to  form 
it,  was  as  yet  in  a  gaseous  state.  Was  there  no  break 
in  continuity  as  it  passed  into  a  molten  mass  ?  Was  this 
a  simple  result  of  the  loss  of  heat  ?  Are  gases  con- 
densed into  red-hot  masses  as  they  cool  down  ? 

Whatever  answer  physicists  may  give  to  these  and 
similar  questions,  they  concede  that  this  gaseous  state 
was  incompatible  with  life,  as  was  also  the  succeeding 
or  molten  state. 

Gradually,  the  surface  of  this  mass  became  sufficiently' 
cookd  to  permit  the  condensation  of  vapor  into  water. 
In  the  lapse  of  ages  continents  emerged  from  the  pre- 
viously shoreless  ocean.  By  degrees  they  became  fitted 
to  sustain  vegetable  life;  still,  no  plant  existed,  not  even 
a  lichen.  The  sun  poured  down  its  rays  upon  treeless 
plains  and  shrubless  mountains.  The  rain  watered  bar- 
ren wastes.  The  rivers  flowed  onwards  between  ver- 
dureless  banks  to  an  untenanted  ocean.  The  air  was 
incessantly  moving  in  currents  and  counter  currents,  but 
no  winged  creature,  bird  or  insect,  sported  itself  therein. 
A  lifeless  world  ! 

A  time  came,  however,  when  the  surface  was  teeming 
with  vegetable  life — plants  existing  of  almost  countless 
varieties,  "  each  yielding  seed  after  its  kind."  What  agen- 
cies produced  this  change  ?  Was  there  no  break  in  con- 
tinuity, no  new  beginning  when  vegetable  life  appeared  ? 
What  force  produced  it  ?  Did  matter  evolve  it  ?  Was 
a  germ  wafted  to  the  earth  from  some  other  world,  the 
difficulties  connected  with  separate  creations  being  re- 
moved by  the  origination  of  one  living  organism  capa- 
ble of  communicating  life  to  the  universe  ?     They  who 


240  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

are  disposed  to  answer  either  of  these  questions  in  the 
affirmative  are  logically  forced  to  concede  that  there 
has  been  a  break  in  continuity,  a  thing  apparently  incon- 
ceivable unless  there  is  a  Personal  Will  back  of  nature. 
That  force  should  originate  life,  or  that  matter  should,  is 
at  variance  with  the  uniform  testimony  of  experience  that 
life  is  invariably  from  pre-existing  life. 

As  yet  no  animal  existed,  not  even  a  moneron  on  an 
ocean-bed.  Gradually  the  earth  became  fitted  to  sus- 
tain this  form  of  life — millions  of  years  being  needed  for 
the  transformations.  In  time,  lo,  earth  and  air  and  sea, 
are  teeming  with  myriads  of  living  creatures,  swarm- 
ing everywhere!  What  agencies  produced  these  changes? 
Whence  came  animal-life  ?  Was  it  evolved  from  veget- 
able existences  ?  Was  it  generated  spontaneously  in 
the  laboratories  of  nature?  Did  it  fall  from  some  ad- 
jacent planet  ?  Again,  there  must  have  been  a  break  in 
continuity. 

Though  life  was  rolling  over  the  earth  in  swelling  bil- 
lows, like  the  waves  of  a  ceaselessly  agitated  ocean,  there 
were  no  human  beings,  no  intelligent  personalities  pos- 
sessing "  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the 
fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  the  cattle,  and  over  all  the  earth, 
and  over  every  creeping  thing."  Lo,  the  scene  changes, 
and  man  exists:  he  is  toiling,  hating,  loving,  fearing,  hop- 
ing, dying!  By  what  agencies  was  this  change  effected  ? 
Was  man  evolved  from  the  monkey  ?  Again,  there  has 
been  a  break  in  continuity. 

Prof.  Huxley  says: — 

"  It  has  ceased  to  be  conceivable  to  any  person  who  has  paid  attention 
to  modern  thought,  that  chance  should  have  any  place  in  the  universe,  or  that 
events  should  follow  anything  but  the  natural  order  of  cause  and  effect." 

We  have,  therefore,  the  authority  of  Prof.  Huxley  for  the 
assertion  that  these  sudden  leaps  could  not  have  occurred 


CONTINUITY.  241 

by  chance,  but  must  have  been  produced  by  some  ade- 
quate cause  or  causes.  Certainly  the  chasms  to  which  we 
refer  are  broad:  from  a  homogeneous,  nebulous  mate- 
rial, pervading  all  space  and  subject  to  a  certain  number 
of  forces,  to  a  definite  part  of  that  nebulous  material,  re- 
stricted to  a  limited  portion  of  space  and  subject  to  new 
laws,  as  it  must  have  been,  since  it  proceeds  to  the  for- 
mation of  a  planetary  system;  from  a  homogeneous  mass 
diffused  through  a  sphere  whose  diameter  is  billions  of 
miles  to  a  portion  of  that  mass  set  aside  for  the  forma- 
tion of  a  world  and  impressed  with  new  laws;  from  a  gas- 
eous condition  to  a  molten  state;  from  a  molten  state  to 
a  condition  favorable  to  plant  life;  from  the  inanimate 
to  the  animate,  an  immense  abyss;  from  vegetable  life  to 
animal  life;  from  mere  animal  life  to  rational  life; — seven 
great  changes  which  look  like  new  beginnings,  like 
epochs,  some  of  them  like  creative  epochs.  What  cause 
or  causes  produced  them  ?  To  this  question  atheistic 
evolution  has  given  the  following  answers: — 

I.  The  changes  were  effected  by  purely  physical  causes. 
By  these,  and  without  the  direction  or  superintendence 
of  Divine  Power,  the  universe  was  evolved  from  "  star- 
dust,"  and  the  solar  system  was  subsequently  evolved  in 
its  present  form.  To  the  question,  How  came  matter  to 
assume  vegetable  and  animal  forms  ?  it  is  responded, 
Such  forms,  or  at  least  one  parental  form,  must  have  been 
produced  by  spontaneous  generation;  for,  as  Prof.  Huxley 
affirms,  "  If  evolution  is  true,  the  living  must  have  arisen 
from  the  not-living."  To  the  inquiry,  What  agency  pro- 
duced subsequent  transmutations  in  the  vegetable  and 
animal  kingdoms  ?  several  answers  have  been  given:  {a) 
the  use  or  disuse  of  the  parts  of  the  living  organism,  su- 
perinduced by  environment;  {b)  changed  conditions  of  life 
acting  directly  upon  existing  varieties;   (c)  an  inherent 


242  THEISM   AND    F.VOLUTION. 

tendency  to  variation;  (d)  natural  selection  operating  in 
conjunction  with  the  intense  struggle  for  existence  and 
resulting  in  improvement,  since  only  the  fittest  to  survive 
could  survive. 

All  the  changes,  according  to  this  theory,  are  suffi- 
ciently accounted  for  by  simply  saying,  Physical  causes 
produced  them;  for,  as  it  can  be  shown  that  many  of  the 
transmutations  have  certainly  been  effected  by  purely 
physical  forces,  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  all  have,  as 
science  is  making  rapid  strides  in  successfully  proving. 

Prof.  Tyndall  says: — 

"  Those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  evolution  are  by  no  means  ignorant  of  the 
uncertainty  of  their  data,  and  they  yield  no  more  to  it  than  a  provisional  assent. 
They  regard  the  nebular  hypothesis  as  probable;  and  in  the  utter  absence  of  any 
evidence  to  prove  the  act  illegal,  they  extend  the  method  of  nature  from  the 
present  into  the  past,  and  accept  as  probable  the  unbroken  sequence  of  develop- 
ment from  the  nebula  to  the  present  time  "  —  Fra^imnts  of  Scietue,  p.  1 66. 

It  is  only  claimed  that  "  the  unbroken  sequence  of  de- 
velopment is  probable."  Is  it  not  quite  as  probable  that 
"  the  unbroken  sequence"  has  been  broken  once  at  least, 
at  the  origination  of  life,  if  not  indeed  many  times  ?  And 
if  it  has  been  broken  but  once,  then  physical  causes  are 
an  inadequate  explanation;  and  it  is  conceded  by  nearly 
all  evolutionists  that  they  do  not  explain  the  origination 
of  matter,  nor  the  origin  of  life,  nor  self-consciousness, 
nor  the  sense  of  personal  identity,  nor  the  distinction 
between  the  automatic  and  the  volitional  nerves  of  the 
brain.  If  it  is  certain  that  the  law  of  continuity  has  been 
broken,  then  is  it  highly  probable  that  physical  causes 
are  an  inadmissible  explanation.  It  becomes  probable, 
from  the  concessions  of  atheistic  evolutionists  them- 
selves, that  a  Personal  Will  is  needed  to  account  for 
these  sudden  and  apparently  causeless  breaks. 

2.  These   changes    are    effected    by   the   intelligence 


CONTINUITY.  243 

resident  in  nature  itself,  intelligence  being  an  invariable 
attribute  of  matter.  The  extreme  difficulty,  not  to  say 
impossibility,  of  believing  that  mindless  causes  could  pro- 
duce intelligent  results  has  induced  some  to  adopt  this 
view — anything  sooner  than  admit  the  existence  of  a  Per- 
sonal God.  They  affirm  that,  as  in  vegetable  and  animal 
germs  there  is  a  something,  an  intangible,  imponderable 
life-principle,  which  intelligently  selects  means  for  the 
accomplishment  of  a  fixed  purpose — choosing  from  earth, 
air,  and  water,  the  elements  needed  for  growth, — so  is  there 
in  nature  an  intelligence  which  chooses  agencies  adapted 
to  the  production  of  results  manifesting  what  we  denom- 
inate intelligent  design,  a  principle  of  life  is  inherent  in 
nature. 

The  advocates  of  this  theory,  at  least  some  of  them, 
are  disposed  to  concede  that  mind  and  matter  are  dis- 
tinct substances;  but  they  maintain  that  neither  exists 
or  can  exist,  except  in  union  with  the  other, — distinct, 
but  inseparable. 

This  theory  with  its  variations,  may  be  regarded,  we 
presume — if  the  evolution  theory  is  itself  an  evolution 
— as  an  improved  variety  of  the  ancient  theory  which 
regarded  water  as  holding  all  things  in  solution  and 
as  rendered  pregnant  by  an  organizer  educed  from  the 
abysmal  waste  of  agitated  waves.  The  evolution  of  all 
things,  through  agencies  many  and  breaks  not  a  few, 
is  under  the  superintendence  of  an  intelligence  evolved 
from  that  heaving  ocean  of  matter  which  needs  a  super- 
intendent,— the  need  creating  the  supply. 

Possibly  we  have  mistaken  the  original  form  of  this  hy- 
pothesis. Perhaps  it  is  a  descendant  of  the  theory  held 
by  the  ancient  Phoenicians,  Egyptians,  Chinese,  and  others, 
that  the  origin  of  all  things  was  a  primeval  egg,  contain- 
ing a  principle  of  life,  from  which  everything  has  been 


244  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

hatched  by  heat.  If  all  conceivable  conjectures  as  well  as 
all  exploded  absurdities,  all  possible  speculations  as  well 
as  all  existing  theories,  were  potentially  in  this  primeval 
egg,  awaiting  the  heat  of  discussion  to  bring  them  out, 
may  we  not  fear  that  if  speculation  goes  on  a  few  million 
years  more,  the  universe  will  be  flooded  with  theories — 
will  in  fact  be  converted  into  an  impalpable,  imponderable, 
invisible,  unfathomable,  unknowable,  unconditioned,  in- 
comprehensible, indestructible,  infinite  "  mist  " — "  fire- 
mist  "  once  again  ?     Begin  anew. 

Theistic  evolution  solves  the  difficulties  connected 
with  abrupt  changes,  violent  breaks,  and  new  beginnings, 
as  follows: — 

i.  Creation  is  by  derivation.  There  is  a  succession  of 
changes,  most  of  which  are  regular,  orderly,  and  gradual, 
though  some  are  abrupt,  sudden,  and  inexplicable  ex- 
cept on  the  hypothesis  of  a  Divine  Personality.  For 
each  class  of  changes  provision  has  been  made  by  Infi- 
nite Intelligence, — all  changes  occur  in  accordance  with 
pre-ordained,  divinely  sustained,  eternal  forces.  "  In 
the  beginning  "  matter  was  diffused  throughout  the  uni- 
verse in  an  extremely  attenuated  state.  It  possessed, 
imparted  to  it  by  a  Personal  God,  the  same  forces 
which  it  possesses  at  present.  Under  the  operation  of 
these,  and  beneath  the  superintendence  of  Divine  Wis- 
dom, all  changes  have  been  effected,  the  smallest  having 
been  pre-arranged. 

According  to  this  view  the  nebular  hypothesis  is  a 
plausible  and  probable  explanation  of  the  manner  in 
which  God  formed  the  planets  of  the  solar  system  from 
pre-existing  materials,  and  furnishes  an  intimation,  not 
only  of  the  way  in  which  other  celestial  bodies  were  pro- 
bably formed,  but  also  of  the  manner  in  which  world-ma- 
terials were  produced  and  aggregated  from  an  infinitely 


CONTINUITY.  245 

diffused  "  star-dust,"  which  in  its  elementary  condition 
must  have  been  an  effluence  from  His  own  eternal  sub- 
stance or  the  direct  creation  of  His  Omnipotent  Will. 
To  the  question,  What  is  the  origin  of  life?  it  answers: 
God,  by  derivative  creation,  called  into  being  one  pri- 
mordial germ,  or  at  most  a  few  germs.  To  the  question, 
Whence  came  the  various  species  of  plants  and  animals  ? 
it  responds:  They  are  results  of  creation  by  derivation — 
God  chooses  to  create  in  this  way.  It  is  this  form  of  evo- 
lution which  is  gaining  ground  among  theologians.  It 
is  ably  presented  by  Owen  and  Mivart. 

Those  who-  are  unwilling  to  accept  the  nebular  hy- 
pothesis, even  when  in.  theistic  dress,  may  argue: — 

(a)  How  came  the  nebulous  material  to  be  in  such  an 
intensely  heated  condition  ?  No  matter  can  go  out  of 
one  condition  into  another  without  an  adequate  cause. 
It  is  not  fair  to  assume,  contrary  to  the  testimony  of  all 
experience,  that  the  world-material  was  so  intensely  hot. 
You  have  no  right,  simply  that  you  may  secure  an  hy- 
pothesis which  will  apparently  account  for  the  facts,  to 
put  into  it  anything  more  than  our  knowledge  of  nature 
warrants. 

(b)  What  has  become  of  all  this  heat  ?  What  has 
become  of  all  the  heat  which,  according  to  the  hypoth- 
esis, has  been  radiated  during  the  period  of  five  billion 
years,  since  the  nebulous  mass  became  condensed  into 
worlds  ?  The  system,  it  is  said,  is  cooling,  cooling  con- 
tinually. What  becomes  of  the  heat  ?  Prof.  Tyndall 
says,  "  It  is  wasted."  Prof.  Proctor  says  that  "  only  the 
one  two  hundred  and  twenty-seventh  of  the  one  millionth 
of  all  the  heat  from  the  sun  reaches  any  planet;  the 
remainder  passes  into  space  and  is  lost."  But  nothing  in 
the  universe  is  ever  wasted — nothing  is  ever  lost.  Heat 
is  force,  and   force,  like  matter,   is   indestructible.     All 


24G  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

the  heat  therefore  that  has  ever  been  in  the  universe  must 
be  in  it  still.  It  only  changes  its  place,  or  changes  its 
form.  Into  what  other  force  has  it  been  transformed  ? 
Where  is  it  ?  If  it  has  passed  to  other  systems,  it  is  fair 
to  assume  that  as  much  force  in  some  form  has  come  to 
this  system  from  other  systems.  If  not,  then  it  can  only 
be  because  other  planetary  systems  are  cooler  than  this, 
which  has  not  been  proved,  and  cannot  be.  Forces  tend 
to  equilibrium. 

Besides,  electricity  is  convertible  into  either  light  or 
heat.  Sunlight  is  not  heat — it  only  becomes  heat  by 
being  absorbed  by  matter.  That  which  comes  forth 
from  the  sun  as  electricity  may  become  light,  heat, 
magnetism,  or  chemical  affinity,  according  to  circum- 
stances; and  that  which  comes  forth  from  the  sun  in  force 
of  one  form,  ought  to  return  thither  in  force  of  some 
form — at  least  it  is  legitimate  to  presume  that  this  is 
so  until  it  shall  be  proved  that  either  space  or  adjacent 
planetary  systems  are  robbers,  and  robbers  who  are  so 
intensely  covetous  that  they  are  still  unsatisfied  though 
they  have  been  pilfering  from  this  insignificant  solar 
system  for  unnumbered  billions  of  years.  No:  in  the 
universe,  one  part  does  not  steal  from  another.  If  it 
takes  what  it  needs,  it  invariably  gives  an  equivalent. 
It  could  not  otherwise  get  what  it  needs. 

(c)  The  materials  of  the  earth  are  not  arranged  ac- 
cording to  density,  as  they  should  be,  if  the  nebular 
hypothesis  furnishes  an  explanation  of  the  mode  of  its 
construction.  There  is  a  liquid  sea  of  molten  material 
in  the  center.  The  solid  rock  should  have  been  at  the 
center,  the  earthy  material  above  it,  then  flowing  lava, 
then  air. 

(d)  Since  more  heat  is  required  to  fuse  some  metals 
than  is  needed  to  fuse  others,  and  since  some  metals  are 


CONTINUITY.  247 

heavier  than  others,  how  does  it  happen  that  in  many- 
instances  the  less  weighty  and  the  easily  fusible  are 
embedded  in  the  more  weighty  and  the  less  fusible  ? 
Gold  is  embedded  in  granite. 

(r)  There  is  no  positive  proof  that  there  ever  was  a 
nebulous  mass;  and  the  presumption  is  that  there  never 
was,  for  many  supposed  nebulae  have  been  resolved,  by 
the  powerful  telescope  of  Lord  Rosse,  into  planetary 
systems. 

(/)  The  hypothesis  does  not  furnish  a  satisfactory 
explanation  of  the  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies. 

(g)  The  hypothesis  makes  a  large  number  of  almost 
incredible  assumptions:  (a)  the  nebulous  mass  was  heated 
to  such  an  extent  that  all  metals  were  in  a  gaseous  state; 
(b)  the  homogeneous  mass,  while  in  the  process  of 
cooling,  managed  to  produce  an  almost  infinite  number 
of  heterogeneous  results,  a  large  number  of  different 
substances  in  each  of  three  distinct  states,  the  solid, 
the  liquid  and  the  gaseous;  {c)  all  the  heavenly  bodies 
were  formed  from  nebulous  matter;  (d)  the  entire  mass 
was  rotating,  though  no  satisfactory  cause  of  this  motion 
is  assigned;  (e)  this  motion  was  more  and  more  rapid, 
and  the  increasing  rapidity  was  due  to  the  process  of 
cooling  and  contracting;  (/)  the  elipticity  of  the  orbits  in 
which  all  celestial  bodies  move  is  satisfactorily  explained 
by  the  hypothesis, 

2.  The  second  solution  of  these  changes,  as  explained 
by  theistic  evolutionists,  is  what  is  denominated  crea- 
tive evolution — there  is  an  immanent  supernatural  power, 
so  operating  and  adjusting  natural  forces  as  to  evolve 
designedly  all  changes,  even  those  at  present  inexpli- 
cable, in  a  regular,  gradual,  uninterrupted  order.  Accord- 
ing to  this  view,  all  transmutations  in  the  vegetable  and 
animal  worlds,  and  all  cosmical  changes  as  well,  result 


248  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

by  design  from  natural  causes  in  which  God  is  immanent; 
and  never  result  from  anything  else  than  natural  causes, 
and  always  in  a  graduated  series  which  presents  no  breaks, 
though  there  are  what  we  are  disposed  to  denominate 
breaks.  Jevons  remarks,  in  his  Principles  of  Science: 
"  If  occurrences  can  be  designed  and  foreseen  by  a  human 
artist,  it  is  surely  within  the  capacity  of  the  Divine  Artist 
to  provide  for  similar  changes  of  law  in  the  mechanism 
of  an  atom,  or  the  construction  of  the  heavens." 

Those  who  are  indisposed  to  accept  the  theistic  form 
of  evolution,  and  consequently  are  inclined  to  repudiate 
both  the  above  explanations,  generally  express  them- 
selves as  believers  in  the  immanence  of  the  Divine  energy 
in  what  are  called  the  physical  forces,  which  forces  are 
incessantly  operative,  and  produce  a  graduated,  regular, 
unbroken  series  of  effects;  occasionally,  however,  God 
through  higher  forces — which  are  of  course  natural, though 
unusual — or  by  the  direct  exercise  of  His  Omnipotent  Will 
causes  great  and  otherwise  inexplicable  advances  in  the 
ordinarily  slow  progress  of  improvement.  Such  special 
intervention  is  indispensably  necessary,  it  is  affirmed,  in 
order  to  account  for  what  may  be  very  properly  regarded 
as  new  beginnings, -the  origination  of  matter,  the  com- 
mencement of  life,  the  origin  of  man,  etc.  Most  of 
His  operations  in  nature,  for  example,  the  production  of 
varieties,  of  closely  allied  species,  etc.,  are  carried  on 
through  the  ordinary  physical  forces,  and  are  indirect  and 
gradual;  some  of  His  operations,  indeed  many,  though 
few  comparatively,  are  by  forces  unknown  to  us  and  un- 
knowable, if  indeed  they  are  distinguishable  from  His  will. 


CHAPTER   XV. 

FORCE. 

In  reference  to  force  the  following  opinions  are  enter- 
tained by  advanced  thinkers: — 

I.  In  its  essence  it  is  indefinable  and  unsearchable. 

II.  In  its  origin  it  is  spiritual — it  is  the  immanence  of 
the  Divine  Will  in  nature. 

III.  It  is  immaterial — and  is  probably  a  substantial 
entity. 

IV.  It  is  convertible — one  force  can  be  converted  into 
any  one  of  the  other  forces. 

V.  It  is  indestructible — no  force  has  been  or  can  be 
annihilated. 

VI.  It  cannot  be  evolved  from  matter,  unless  it  has 
been  previously  involved  therein. 

I.  Force,  like  matter,  is  in  its  essence  un- 
known AND  UNDISCOVERABLE. 

It  is  not  possible  to  determine  all  its  properties.  Some 
of  its  laws  may  be  adduced;  not  all,  however,  can  be. 
An  enumeration  may  be  made  of  certain  forces  that  are 
operative  on  earth,  throughout  the  solar  system,  and 
probably  to  the  remotest  limits  of  the  universe,  even  in 
regions  beyond  the  penetrating  gaze  of  the  most  power- 
ful telescope;  but  there  may  be  forces  in  the  world  of 
which  we  can  have  no  knowledge — of  course,  such  may 
have  potency  in  the  untrodden  pathways  of  immensity. 
The  correlation  and  conservation  of  the  physical  forces 


250  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

is  an  established  fact.  Light,  heat,  electricity,  magnet- 
ism, and  chemical  affinity  are  intimately  related.  Each 
can  be  converted  into  any  one  of  the  others;  but  it  does 
not  follow  that  either  can  be  transformed  into  some  other 
force,  if  any  other  exists.  These  several  forces  may  be 
only  different  modes  in  which  the  Divine  Will  manifests 
itself:  it  may  possibly  manifest  itself  in  other  modes,  how- 
ever. As  is  generally  believed,  they  may  be  immaterial 
in  their  nature,  and  certainly  are  incapable  of  being  re- 
cognized as  any  specific  form  of  matter.  It  is  conceivable, 
nevertheless,  that  they  may  be  an  unknown  form,  as  dif- 
ferent from  any  known  form  as  platinum  is  different  from 
ether.  It  is  this  conviction  which  has  led  to  their  being 
designated  as  "  Imponderables,"  the  design  being  to  ex- 
press the  opinion  that  they  were  destitute  of  at  least  one 
material  property — they  were  not  subject  to  gravitation. 
They  are  regarded,  moreover,  as  incapable  of  annihila- 
tion. This  furnishes  no  warrant,  however,  for  the  assertion 
that  they  cannot  be  destroyed  even  by  Omnipotence; 
much  less  that  they  cannot  be  held  in  abeyance  by  the 
Divine  Will.  The  premises  will  not  sustain  a  conclusion 
so  sweeping.  Reasons  may  be  assigned,  it  is  true,  for 
believing  that  no  force  can  be  annihilated  by  any  power 
inherent  in  the  system  itself:  beyond  this,  assertions 
should  be  made  with  extreme  caution.  A  universal  con- 
clusion from  premises  that  are  not  universal  is  not  a  ne- 
cessary inference,  however  plausible  it  may  seem.  Again: 
that  no  force  can  be  evolved  from  matter  unless  it  has 
been  previously  involved  in  matter  is  self-evident,  and 
bears  with  irresistible  weight  against  every  atheistic  form 
of  evolution;  still,  it  must  not  be  understood  as  implying 
that  nothing  can  come  from  any  material  cause,  except 
what  was  communicated  to  it  at  creation.  Omnipotence 
can  communicate  new  energies  from,  through,  or  indepen- 


FORCE.  251 

dent  of,  existing  forces.  Atheistic  evolution  is  illogical, 
for  it  assumes  that  matter  may  acquire  new  forces,  evolv- 
ing what  was  not  involved.  Theistic  evolution  permits 
us  to  believe  that  Divine  Energy  may  be  communicated 
at  any  time  through  new  channels  or  through  existing 
channels.  It  insists,  however,  that  force  cannot  be 
evolved,  unless  it  has  been  previously  involved,  either 
mediately  or  immediately. 

Of  the  many  definitions  of  force — all  of  which  are  open 
to  objections — we  prefer  that  of  Prof.  Mayer:  "Force  is 
that  which  is  expended  in  producing  or  resisting  motion." 
This  single  sentence  is  ample  evidence  that  its  unfortu- 
nate author — whose  overtasked  powers  suffered  a  tempo- 
rary eclipse,  and  whose  fame  became  a  target  for  the 
arrows  of  envy — was  endowed  with  rare  intellectual 
powers,  such  as  are  the  inheritance  of  but  few.  It 
evinces  a  deep  insight  into  the  mysteries  of  nature,  great 
power  of  generalization  and  profound  thought.  Though 
his  most  ardent  admirers — who  are  many  and  are  among 
the  most  learned  of  the  age — are  by  no  means  unanimous 
in  the  belief  that  he  has  furnished  a  logical  definition  of 
force,  since  he  has  not  designated  in  unmistakable  lan- 
guage either  the  genus  or  the  differentia  of  the  term, 
having  merely  told  us  what  force  does,  not  what  force  is; 
still,  he  seems  clearly  to  intimate  as  much  respecting  its 
nature  as  is  known  at  present,  indeed  as  much,  perhaps, 
as  will  ever  be  known.  It  is  a  something  which  expends 
itself,  exhausts  itself,  in  motion  or  in  the  resistance  of 
motion. 

Does  the  definition,  as  it  is  called,  encourage  us  in 
regarding  force  as  a  material  entity  ?  We  think  not;  for, 
as  a  cause  must  continue  to  exist  in  the  effect  it  produces; 
and  as  it  has  not  been  proved  that  a  purely  material 
cause    can    produce    an    immaterial  effect,  matter  being 


252  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

incapable  of  producing  thought;  and  as  in  this  case  the 
effect  is  simple  motion,  or  the  simple  resistance  of  motion, 
each  of  which  is  purely  immaterial, — we  may  infer  that 
the  definition  does  not  justify  us  in  regarding  force  as  a 
material  entity.  We  speak  of  a  material  force,  it  is  true; 
we  mean  no  more,  however,  than  a  force  which  is  mani- 
fested in  connection  with  matter,  as  indeed  all  forces  are 
so  far  as  we  know,  though  the  connection  is  less  appar- 
ent in  some  cases  than  in  others.  When  our  attention  is 
specially  directed  to  the  visible  matter  in  which  the  force 
inheres  we  designate  it  a  material  force.  Matter  is  not 
force,  nor  can  it  annihilate  itself  in  becoming  motion.  It 
cannot  annihilate  itself  in  resisting  motion.  It  cannot 
produce  motion.  It  cannot  annihilate  motion.  It  is 
absolutely  powerless.  An  ivory  ball  rebounds  if  thrown 
upon  a  marble  slab.  It  is  not  the  material  constituting 
the  slab  which  caused  the  rebound,  but  force  resident 
in  the  slab.  Convert  the  marble  slab  into  gas  and  the 
ball  will  not  rebound  from  its  surface.  If  force  expends 
itself  in  producing  or  resisting  motion,  then  force  is  im- 
material. It  could  not  otherwise  expend  itself,  practi- 
cally annihilate  itself,  in  producing  that  which  is  unques- 
tionably immaterial.  Matter  is  indestructible.  It  may 
change  its  form.  It  cannot  cease  to  be.  Motion  is  not 
matter.  If  the  latter  can  transmute  itself  into  motion,  it 
can  annihilate  itself.  Nay,  it  can  do  more — it  can  re-create 
itself;  for  motion  can  be  transmuted  into  heat,  a  force; 
and  if  force  is  matter  then  matter  is  a  self-creation,  or, 
what  is  virtually  the  same  thing,  is  an  effect  of  an  im- 
material cause.  If  heat  is  matter,  and  if,  as  cannot  be 
denied,  motion  may  be  converted  into  heat,  then  imma- 
teriality can  originate  materiality,  that  is,  an  immaterial 
cause  can  produce  objectivity  without  anything  from 
which  to  manufacture  it.     As  we  are  repeatedly  assured 


FORCE.  253 

that  an  Omnipotent  Personal  Will  cannot  create  matter 
de  novo,  we  are  justified  in  concluding  that  absolute  cre- 
ation cannot  be  an  effect  of  motion,  nor  of  any  one  of 
the  physical  forces.  Consequently,  this  definition  of  Dr. 
Mayer,  as  is  evident  from  the  tenor  of  his  writings  and 
from  the  conclusions  of  modern  science,  is  not  to  be  un- 
derstood as  consistent  with  the  assumption  that  force  is 
a  material  entity. 

Does  the  definition  justify  us  in  regarding  force  as 
simply  a  mode  of  motion  ?  No:  for  that  could  not  be 
regarded  as  a  mode  of  motion  which  produces  every 
movement  covered  by  the  term  motion,  since  that  would 
be  equivalent  to  saying  that  a  mode  of  motion  produces 
all  motion;  i.  e.}  produces  itself  first,  then  every  other 
mode  of  motion.  Further,  it  would  be  a  virtual  declara- 
tion that  resistance  to  motion  is  a  mode  of  motion;  i.  e.y 
force  annihilates  force:  and  yet  we  are  assured  that  force 
is  indestructible.  If  then  force  is  a  mode  of  motion 
which  produces  or  resists  motion,  it  must  be  capable 
of  creating  and  annihilating  itself  an  indefinite  number 
of  times. 

Does  the  definition  assume  that  force  is  an  entity  ?  It 
is  difficult  to  view  it  otherwise;  for  it  characterizes  force 
as  capable  of  producing  all  the  motion  in  the  universe. 
Is  it  conceivable  that  such  a  stupendous  effect  should  flow 
from  anything  less  than  an  entitive  existence  ?  As  force, 
after  exhausting  itself  in  motion,  can  be  reconverted  into 
force,  it  seems  natural  to  regard  it  as  an  entity.  Heat, 
after  being  transformed  into  motion,  can  be  re-trans- 
formed. Light  can  be  converted  into  heat  and  back  again 
into  light.  Electricity  can  be  transmuted  into  magnetism 
or  into  chemical  affinity,  indeed  into  any  one  of  the 
physical  forces,  and  be  converted  back  to  electricity. 
Force,  then,  must  be  an  immaterial  entity. 


254  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

It  is  difficult  to  accept  the  theory  of  some  scientists, 
that  physical  force  is  not  an  entity  of  any  kind  whatever. 
It  seems  inconceivable  that  heat,  though  capable  of 
producing  measureless  effects,  should  be  simply  an 
irregular  agitation  in  an  intervening  medium. 

Again:  that  light  should  be  merely  an  undulation 
in  a  hypothetical  luminiferous  ether,  not  a  substantial 
entity,  appears  a  severe  tax  on  human  reason.  Light  can 
be  decomposed  into  the  seven  primary  colors  and  the 
separated  rays  can  be  recombined,  forming  white  light. 
Each  of  the  seven  colors  has  a  wave-length  of  its  own. 
Each,  like  the  undivided  ray,  can  be  reflected  and  the 
laws  of  reflection  scientifically  stated.  Each  can  be 
refracted  and  the  laws  of  refraction  accurately  deter- 
mined. Light  is  refracted  as  it  passes  from  one  medium 
to  another  of  greater  or  less  density.  It  can  be  polar- 
ized, the  polarized  ray  being  thereby  made  to  assume 
qualities  different  from  those  of  an  ordinary  ray.  The 
polarization  can  be  effected  by  reflection,  by  single 
refraction,  or  by  double  refraction.  Light  is  diffracted, 
or  bent,  as  it  passes  the  edge  of  a  material  substance, 
being  subject,  as  Sir  W.  Thomson  says,  to  magnetic 
influence.  It  differs  in  quality  according  to  the  nature 
of  the  illuminating  body,  every  elementary  substance, 
when  in  a  state  of  incandescence,  having  a  spectrum 
peculiar  to  itself;  indeed,  the  quality  of  light  is  affected 
by  the  surface  from  which  it  is  reflected.  Light  can  be 
absorbed,  the  heat  imprisoned  in  coal-fields  being  only 
absorbed  sunlight.  Its  rays  can  interfere  with  each 
other,  causing  dark  lines  in  the  spectrum.  It  can  pro- 
duce chemical  action,  blackening  chloride  of  silver,  ren- 
dering transparent  phosphorus  opaque,  fading  vegetable 
colors,  combining  hydrogen  and  chlorine  gases  when 
mixed,  etc.     A  theory  which  assumes  that  waves  may 


FORCE.  255 

consist  of  vibrations  at  right  angles  to  the  line  of  direc- 
tion, and  that  in  polarized  light,  though  the  intensity  is 
the  same,  the  vibrations  are  in  the  plane  of  polarization; 
which  asserts  that  this  wave-disturbance  is  unaltered  in 
kind  and  in  amount  as  it  proceeds,  however  far  it  travels, 
being  never  broken  up  into  irregular  vibrations,  never 
diminished  in  amount,  never  changed  in  character;  which 
declares  that  all  bodies  have  the  property  of  exciting 
vibrations,  each  body  exciting  a  vibration  having  a  wave- 
length peculiar  to  that  body,  thus  producing  light  of 
different  colors,  and  giving  its  own  shading  to  every 
object;  which  seems  to  suggest  that  the  effect  pro.duces 
its  cause,  for  it  affirms  that  the  different  colors  of  light 
are  due  to  the  lengths  of  the  undulations — red  light  being 
caused  by  a  long  undulation  and  violet  by  a  short  undu- 
lation, though  it  would  seem  more  natural  to  say  that 
the  lengths  of  the  undulations  were  caused  by  the  color 
of  the  light,  not  the  color  of  the  light  by  the  lengths  of 
the  undulations;  which,  before  it  can  furnish  an  explana- 
tion of  a  single  phenomenon  of  light,  demands  a  second 
hypothesis  (a  pure  conjecture),  that  a  luminiferous  ether 
pervades  all  space  and  all  substances — an  extremely 
subtile  elastic  fluid  if  some  phenomena  are  to  be  ex- 
plained, an  incompressible  solid  if  other  phenomena  are  to 
receive  a  satisfactory  explanation,  though  the  ether 
whether  a  fluid  or  a  solid  is  uninfluenced  by  gravitation; 
which  affirms  that  this  luminiferous  ether  transmits 
vibrations  in  a  perfectly  unimpaired  condition  through 
transparent  substances — transmitting  them  as  readily  as 
through  space — and  communicates  vibrations  within  all 
substances,  even  within  the  densest; — such  a  theory,  to 
say  the  least,  is  not  as  satisfactory  as  might  be  desired. 

One  may  be  indisposed  to  question  the  theory  that 
light  is  transmitted  in  a  succession  of  waves,  while  he 


'i:>r>  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

yet  respectfully  suggests  that  a  something  to  transmit 
seems  requisite  to  transmission. 

Nor  is  the  theory  that  the  several  physical  forces  are 
mere  modes  of  motion,  any  more  satisfactory  as  applied 
to  electricity,  magnetism,  and  chemical  affinity.  That 
these  have  no  substantial  existence  is  as  inconceivable 
as  that  light  has  no  such  existence. 

In  its  essence,  then,  force  is  undiscoverable  and 
indefinable. 

To  the  second  accepted  tenet  of  advanced  science 
attention  is  now  directed. 

II.  Force  is  spiritual  in  its  origin. 

In  the  opinion  of  many  reasoners,  "  the  testimony 
of  science  strongly  favors  the  assumption  that  force  is 
the  omnipresent  energy  of  a  Personal  God.  This  theory 
regards  natural  law  as  the  stated  or  ordinary  method 
in  which  God  chooses  to  operate  in  nature,  as  in  fact  the 
supernatural  operating  with  such  unvarying  uniformity 
as  to  create  the  impression  that  possibly  these  laws  are 
independent  of  the  will  of  a  supramundane  Deity.  The 
natural  is  simply  the  supernatural  rendered  familiar  by 
the  frequency  with  which  we  are  permitted  to  note  its 
presence.  The  supernatural  is  the  natural  striking  us 
with  surprise  because  of  the  infrequency  with  which  we 
are  afforded  an  opportunity  of  observing  its  manifestation. 

That  force  originates  in  spirit,  not  in  matter,  is  the 
theory  of  Dr.  \V.  B.  Carpenter,  of  Sir  John  Herschel,  of 
Louis  Agassiz,  of  Dana,  of  Beale,  of  Grove,  of  Joule,  of 
Liebig,  of  Faraday,  of  Mayer, — of  a  host  of  eminent 
authorities  in  the  scientific,  the  metaphysical,  and  the 
theological  world. 

Dr.  Carpenter  says: — 

"  In  regard  to  the  physical  universe  it  might  be  better  to  substitute  for  the 
phrase  government  by  laws,  government  according  to  laws;  meaning  thereby 


FORCE.  257 

the  direct  exertion  of  the  Divine  Will,  or  operation  of  the  First  Cause  in  the 
forces  of  nature,  according  to  certain  uniformities  which  are  simply  unchange- 
able, because  having  been  originally  the  expression  of  Infinite  Wisdom,  any 
change  would  be  for  the  worse.  .   .  .     Will  is  that  form  of  force  which  must 

be  taken  as  the  type  of  all  the  rest Force  must  be  regarded  as  the 

direct  expression  of  will.  .  .  .  When  science,  passing  beyond  its  own  limits, 
assumes  to  take  the  place  of  theology  and  to  set  up  its  own  conceptions  of  the 
order  of  nature  as  a  sufficient  account  of  its  cause,  it  is  invading  a  province  of 
thought  to  which  it  has  no  claim.  To  set  up  these  laws  as  self-acting,  or  as 
either  excluding  or  rendering  unnecessary  the  power  which  alone  can  give  them 
effect,  appears  to  me  as  arrogant  as  it  is  unphilosophical. " — Mental  Physiology, 
chap,  xx.;  Human  Physiology,  p.  542;  also  art.  On  Mutual  Relation  of  Vital 
and  Physical  Forces,  p.  730,  etc. 

Sir  John  Herschel  affirms: — 

"It  is  but  reasonable  to  regard  the  force  of  gravitation  as  the  direct  or  in- 
direct result  of  a  Will  or  Consciousness  existing  somewhere." 

Dr.  Lionel  S.  Beale  says: — 

"  It  has  been  affirmed  that  all  the  phenomena  of  living  matter  are  due  to  the 
operation  of  the  seme  laws  which  govern  the  non-living  world.  But  of  these 
supposed  laws  absolutely  nothing  is  known,  and  there  is  nothing  absurd  or  con- 
trary to  fact,  though  it  may  not  be  in  accord  with  the  prophetic  spirit  of  ma- 
terialism, in  the  view  that  these  powers  of  living  matter  are  utterly  different 
from  any  known  inorganic  forces,  and  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  them. 
They  may  have  emanated  from  power,  instead  of  being  matter -born.  They 
may  even  require,  for  their  existence,  constant  supervision  of  power,  for  aught 
we  can  prove  to  the  contrary,  and  they  may  have  been  created  and  may  be  sus- 
tained by  creative  power,  instead  of  being  a  mere  form  or  mode  of  created 
force,  itself  another  btct  very  different  product  of  creation.  ...  As  I  am 
compelled  by  the  facts  of  the  case  to  admit  that  some  peculiar  non-physical 
agency  influences,  in  a  particular  manner,  material  particles  and  their  forces, 
it  seems  to  me  by  no  means  unreasonable  on  the  part  of  the  physiologist  to  as- 
sume the  existence  and  activity  of  an  energy  perhaps  related  to  vitality,  but  of 
a  yet  higher  order,  capable  of  influencing,  controlling  and  directing  not  only 
living  power,  but  all  matter  and  all  forces  of  whatever  kind." — Protoplasm;-  or 
Matter  and  Life,  pp.  298,  358. 

Prof.  W.  R.  Grove  asserts: — 

"  Although  the  word  cause  may  be  used  in  a  secondary  and  concrete  sense  as 
meaning  antecedent  forces,  yet  in  an  abstract  sense  it  is  totally  inapplicable;  we 
cannot  predicate  of  any  physical  agency  that  it  is  abstractedly  the  cause  of 


258  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

another;  and  if,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  the  language  of  secondary  causation 
be  permissible,  it  should  be  only  with  reference  to  the  special  phenomena  referred 
to,  as  it  can  never  be  generalized.  .  .  .  When  we  study  physical  phenomena 
it  becomes  difficult  to  separate  the  idea  of  causation  from  that  of  force 
and  these  have  been  regarded  as  identical  by  some  philosophers.  ...  If 
we  regard  causation  as  invariable  sequence,  we  can  find  no  case  in  which  a 
given  antecedent  is  the  only  antecedent  to  a  given  sequent.  .  .  .  The  com- 
mon error,  if  I  am  right  in  supposing  it  to  be  such,  consists  in  the  abstraction 
of  cause,  and  in  supposing  in  each  case  a  general  secondary  cause— a  some- 
thing which  is  not  the  first  cause,  but  which  if  we  examine  it  carefully,  must 
have  all  the  attributes  of  a  first  cause,  and  an  existence  independent  of,  and 
dominant  over,  matter.  ...  In  all  phenomena  the  more  closely  they  are  inves- 
tigated the  more  are  we  convinced  that,  humanly  speaking,  neither  matter  nor 
force  can  be  created  or  annihilated,  and  that  an  essential  cause  is  unattainable. 
Causation  is  the  will,  creation  the  act,  of  God." '  —  Correlation  of  Physical 
Forces,  pp.  15,  16,  18,  199. 

Dr.  J.  R.  Mayer  says: — 

"  The  first  cause  of  all  things  is  Deity— a  Being  ever  inscrutable  by  the 
intellect  of  man;  while  higher  causes,  supersensuous  forces,  and  the  rest,  with 
all  their  consequences,  belong  to  the  delusive  middle  region  of  naturalistic  phi- 
losophy and  mysticism.  .  .  .  Force  and  matter  are  indestructible  objects." — 
Correlation  of  Physical  Forces \  p.  341. 

We  may  add  the  testimony  of  the  Duke  of  Argyll: — 

"  We  know  nothing  of  the  ultimate  nature  or  of  the  ultimate  seat  of  force. 
Science,  in  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  conservation  of  energy,  and  the  con- 
vertibility of  forces,  is  already  getting  something  like  a  firm  hold  of  the  idea 
that  all  kinds  of  force  are  but  forms  or  manifestations  of  some  one  central  force 
issuing  from  some  one  fountain-head  of  power.  .  .  .  And  even  if  we  cannot  cer- 
tainly identify  force  in  all  its  forms  with  the  direct  energies  of  one  omnipotent 
and  all -pervading  Will,  it  is  at  least  in  the  highest  degree  unphilosophical  to  as- 
sume the  contrary— to  speak  or  to  think  as  if  the  forces  of  nature  were  either 
independent  of,  or  even  separate  from,  the  Creator's  power.  .  .  .  Whatever 
difficulty  there  may  be  in  conceiving  of  a  will  not  exercised  by  a  visible  person, 
it  is  a  difficulty  which  cannot  be  evaded  by  arresting  our  conceptions  at  the 
point  at  which  they  have  arrived  in  forming  the  idea  of  laws  or  forces.  ...  It 
is  perfectly  true  that  the  mind  does  recognize  in  nature  a  reflection  of  itself  [its 
own  personality].  But  if  this  be  a  deception,  it  is  a  deception  which  is  not 
avoided  by  transferring  the  idea  of  personality  to  the  abstract  idea  of  force,  or 
by  investing  combinations  of  force  with  the  attributes  of  mind.  .  .  .  We  need 
not  be  jealous,   then,  when  new  domains  are  claimed  as  under  the  reign  of 


FORCE.  259 

law — an  agency  through  which  we  see  working  everywhere  some  purpose  of 
the  Everlasting  Will." 

"It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  they  [forces]  stand  in  the  same  relation  to 
the  Will  of  the  Supreme  [that  they  do  to  us] ;  yet  it  seems  as  if  he  took  the 
same  method  of  dealing  with  them — never  violating  them,  never  breaking 
them,  but  always  ruling  them  by  that  which  we  call  adjustment  or  contriv- 
ance ....  And  what  is  contrivance  but  that  kind  of  arrangement  by  which 
the  unchangeable  demands  of  law  are  met  and  satisfied  ?  It  may  be  that  all 
natural  forces  are  resolvable  into  some  one  force;  indeed  in  the  modern  doc- 
trine of  the  correlation  of  forces,  an  idea  which  is  near  to  this,  has  already  en- 
tered the  domain  of  science.  It  may  also  be  that  this  one  force,  into  which 
all  others  return  again,  is  itself  but  a  mode  of  action  of  the  Divine  Will.  But 
we  have  no  instruments  whereby  to  reach  this  last  analysis." — The  Reign  of 
Law,  pp.  122,  123,  125,  127. 

"  The  laws  of  nature,"  says  John  Stuart  Mill,  "  do  not 
account  for  their  origin."  "  The  scientific  mind,"  says 
Tyndall,  "  can  find  no  repose  in  the  mere  registration  of 
sequences.  The  further  question  obtrudes  itself  with 
resistless  weight,  Whence  came  the  sequences  ?  "  Wal- 
lace asserts,  "  If  we  have  traced  one  force,  however 
minute,  to  an  origin  in  our  own  will,  while  we  have  no 
knowledge  of  any  other  primary  cause  of  force,  it  does 
not  seem  an  improbable  conclusion  that  all  force  may 
be  will-force,  and  thus  the  whole  universe  is  not  only 
dependent  on,  but  actually  is  the  will  of  higher  intelli- 
gences, or  of  a  Supreme  Intelligence."*  Spencer  him- 
self concedes  that  "  The  force  by  which  we  ourselves 
produce  changes,  and  which  serves  to  symbolize  the 
cause  of  changes  in  general,  is  the  final  disclosure  of 
all  analysis;  .  .  all  other  modes  of  consciousness  arc 
derived  from  our  consciousness  of  exerting  force."  t 

III.  FORCE  IS  IMMATERIAL — and  is  probably  a  sub- 
stantial entity. 

That  force  fs  immaterial,  whatever  its  origin  may  be, 
is  the  opinion  of  a  majority  of  the  ablest  scientists.     It  is 

*  Natural  Selection,  p.  368.  f  First  Principle,  p.  235. 


260  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

the  theory  of  Prof.  R.  W.  Grove,  who,  in  his  essay  on 
the  Correlation  of  Physical  Forces,  affirms  and  re-affirms 
his  conviction  that  they  are  not  matter.  It  is  the  opin- 
ion of  Dr.  J.  R.  Mayer,  one  of  the  keenest  intellects 
that  ever  essayed  the  task  of  furnishing  the  world  a 
solution  of  nature's  mysteries,  and  who  has  the  honor  of 
being  the  author  of  the  theory  of  the  correlation  and 
conservation  of  forces;  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Carpenter,  of 
Prof.  Joule,  of  Dr.  Ferrier,  indeed  of  all  leading  scien- 
tists. Even  Bain  and  Tyndall  believe  in  the  immateri- 
ality of  force,  for  they  define  matter  as  a  double-faced 
unity  having  two  sets  of  properties,  the  material  and 
the  spiritual. 

There  are  those,  it  is  true,  who  regard  each  force  as 
an  attenuated  kind  of  matter;  heat,  as  a  material  sub- 
stance whose  molecules  are  arranged  in  a  particular  way; 
gravitation  as  attenuated  threads  of  infinitely  divisible 
matter;  electricity  as  a  subtile  fluid  pervading  everything; 
light  as  infinitesimal  atoms  from  incandescent  bodies; 
magnetism  as  a  substance  developed  by  currents  of 
electricity;  sound  as  corpuscular  emanation  from  a  vi- 
brating body. 

It  is  only  fair  to  acknowledge  that  these  views  have 
had  able  defenders.  Newton  and  La  Place  believed  in 
the  corpuscular  theory  of  light,  and  the  authority  of 
these  eminent  scientists  long  prevented  the  scientific 
world  from  adopting  the  truth.  The  demolition  of  the 
once  prevalent  belief  in  the  materiality  of  heat  is  a  com- 
paratively recent  conquest  of  science.  Formerly,  the 
most  illustrious  physicists  accepted  the  materialistic 
theory.  Gravitation  was  conceived  of  by  Newton  as 
attenuated  threads  of  matter.  This  is  made  apparent  in 
his  Third  Letter  to  Bentfy,  a  portion  of  which  was  quoted 
on  page  193. 


FORCE.  201 

Until  a  recent  date  electricity  was  regarded  by  many 
as  a  subtile  material  fluid.  Prof.  J.  Clerk  Maxwell,  at 
the  end  of  his  Treatise  on  Electricity  and  Magnetism, 
presents  an  admirable  summary  of  the  theories  which 
have  prevailed  in  reference  to  the  nature  of  electricity. 
Those  which  regarded  it  as  a  material  substance  are 
looked  upon  as  exploded  hypotheses. 

Though  Pythagoras,  2500  years  ago,  presented  the 
world  with  the  undulatory  theory  of  sound,  still  there 
have  been  able  advocates  of  the  corpuscular  theory, 
which  regards  sound  as  minute  particles  of  matter 
thrown  off  from  bodies  when  vibrating — possibly  from 
all  the  molecules  of  every  kind  of  matter  when  sub- 
jected to  vibratory  movements;  especially  if  the  move- 
ments are  rapid  and  the  checks  sudden. 

Nor  is  the  doctrine  of  the  materiality  of  the  forces  con- 
fined, as  might  seem  probable,  to  those  who  entertain 
materialistic  conceptions  of  the  universe.  It  can  enum- 
erate among  its  advocates  profound  theologians  and  able 
defenders  of  the  dogma  of  a  Personal  Infinite  Will,  of  a 
Being  spiritual  in  His  nature,  unconditioned  in  His  voli- 
tions, eternal  in  His  existence.  This  was  emphatically 
true  in  former  times,  and  is  true,  to  some  extent,  even 
yet.  Reasoners  of  this  class  made  a  broad  distinction 
between  the  physical  forces  on  the  one  hand,  and  vital, 
mental,  and  spiritual  forces  on  the  other.  The  former  are 
associated  with  matter  and  may  be  matter-born;  the 
latter  are  connected  with  life  and  are  spiritual  in  their 
origin,  immaterial  in  their  nature,  and  capable,  within 
limits,  of  controlling,  directing  and  governing  the  physi- 
cal to  the  accomplishment  of  definite  purposes. 

Although  the  dynamic  theory,  as  now  entertained, 
furnishes  a  cogent  argument  in  favor  of  the  probability 
that  there  is  an  infinite  immaterial  Personality  and  that 


262  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

there  are  finite  existences  ceaselessly  active  and  neces- 
sarily immortal,  it  is  not  the  only  armory  from  which 
weapons  can  be  obtained  against  atheism.  Even  though 
it  were  successfully  proved  that  the  forces  of  nature  were 
material,  it  would  still  remain  true  that  the  difference 
between  mind  and  matter  is  radical.  Their  properties  are 
diametrically  opposite. 

It  is  safe  to  affirm,  however,  that  the  preponderance 
of  testimony,  especially  of  the  scientists  of  the  present 
day,  favors  the  accepted  theory  that  the  forces  of  nature 
are  immaterial.  As  an  evidence  of  this — and  without 
troubling  the  reader  with  an  enumeration  of  the  experi- 
ments made  in  reference  to  each  of  the  physical  forces, 
and  without  recapitulating  the  arguments  based  thereon 
— authorities  may  be  quoted,  a  few  from  many. 

"  Scientific  inquiries  are  becoming  less  and  less  questions  of  matter,  and  more 
and  more  questions  of  force;  material  ideas  are  giving  place  to  dynamic  ideas. 
While  the  great  agencies  of  change  with  which  it  is  the  business  of  science  to 
deal — heat,  light,  electricity,  magnetism,  and  affinity,  have  been  formerly 
regarded  as  kinds  of  matter,  imponderable  elements,  in  distinction  from  other 
material  elements,  these  notions  must  now  be  regarded  as  outgrown  and 
abandoned,  and  in  their  place  we  have  an  order  of  purely  immaterial  forces." — 
Edward  Youmans,  M.  D.,  Correlation  and  Conservation  of  Forces,  p.  12. 

"  I  think  the  phases  of  thought  which  physical  philosophers  have  gone 
through,  will  be  found  generally  such  as  I  have  indicated,  and  that  the  gradual 
accumulation  of  discoveries  which  have  taken  place  through  the  most  recent 
periods,  by  showing  what  effects  can  be  produced  by  dynamical  forces  alone, 
is  rapidly  tending  to  a  general  dynamical  theory  into  which  that  of  the  impon- 
derable fluids  promises  ultimately  to  merge."  — Prof.  W.  R.  Grove,  Correlation 
of  Physical  Forces,  p.  104. 

Let  these  two  quotations  suffice  as  a  general  state- 
ment. Are  they  sustained  by  facts  ?  Let  us  see.  In  the 
presentation  of  testimony  upon  this  point,  two  limita- 
tions are  imposed:  (a)  the  extracts  shall  be  from  authors 
whose  standing  in  the  scientific  world  is  such  that  their 
assertions  carry  conviction  with  them,  or  at  least  impose 


FORCE.  2G3 

upon  those  who  are  disinclined  to  accept  them  the  task 
of  refuting  the  theory  recommended,  and  of  establishing 
one  that  commends  itself  by  being  in  accord  with  recog- 
nized facts;  {U)  in  order  that  the  testimony  may  have 
more  weight,  it  shall  be  restricted  to  specific  statements 
— an  opinion  expressed  in  reference  to  each  one  of  the 
so-called  physical  forces, — heat,  light,  electricity,  mag- 
netism, affinity. 

Heat. — "  Let  us  divest  the  mind  of  the  impression  that  heat  is  in  itself  any- 
thing substantive  .  .  .  Heat  thus  viewed  is  motion  .  .  .  Heat  is  a  communi- 
cable expansive  force,  ...  a  communicable  molecular  repulsive  force  .  .  . 
This  difficulty  [why  it  is  not  as  correct  to  say  that  heat  is  absorbed  by  motion 
as  to  say  that  it  is  produced  by  motion]  ceases  when  the  mind  has  been 
accustomed  to  regard  heat  and  cold  as  themselves  motions,  i.  e.,  as  correlative 
expansions  and  contractions,  each  being  evidenced  by  relations  and  being 
inconceivable  as  an  abstraction  .  .  .  Though  I  am  obliged,  in  order  to  be 
intelligible,  to  talk  of  heat  as  an  entity,  and  of  its  conduction,  radiation,  etc.,  yet 
these  expressions  are,  in  fact,  inconsistent  with  the  dynamic  theory,  which 
regards  heat  as  motion  and  nothing  else.  .  .  .  We  only  know  certain  changes 
of  matter,  for  which  changes  heat  is  a  generic  name;  the  thing  heat  is 
unknown." — Prof.  W.  R.  Grove,  Correlation  of  Physical  Forces,  pp.  40,  51, 
53.  48,  55,  etc. 

"  We  know  heat  to  be  a  mode  of  motion  and  not  a  material  substance  .  .  . 
As  long  as  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  materialistic  hypothesis  seemed  an  open 
question,  the  word  caloric  was  held  to  imply  the  materiality  of  heat."— Sir 
Wm.  Thomson,  Encyc.  Brit.,  art.  "  Heat." 

"  The  most  probable  assumption  [in  reference  to  the  nature  of  heat]  is,  that 
it  is  a  motion  of  the  particles  of  matter." — Dr.  Faraday,  Conservation  of 
Force,  p.  370. 

"It  is  hardly  necessary,  he  [Rumford]  remarks,  to  add  that  anything 
which  any  insulated  body  or  system  of  bodies  can  continue  to  furnish  without 
limitation  cannot  possibly  be  a  material  substance;  and  it  appears  to  me  ex- 
tremely difficult,  if  not  quite  impossible,  to  form  any  distinct  idea  of  anything 
capable  of  being  excited  and  communicated  in  the  maimer  that  heat  is  excited 
and  communicated  in  these  experiments,  except  it  be  motion  .  .  .  This  Joule 
has  done  [has  proved  that  the  same  amount  of  heat  can  in  the  end  be  always 
produced  when  the  same  amount  of  energy  is  expanded]  and  his  experiments 
conclusively  prove  that  heat  and  energy  are  of  the  same  nature,  and  that  all 
other  forms  of  energy  with  which  we  are  acquainted  can  be  transformed  into  an 
equivalent  amount  of  heat." — Wm.  Garnett,  Encyc.  Brit.,  art.  "  Energy." 


2 04  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

"  We,  on  the  contrary  [he  believes  in  the  immateriality  of  heat  but  doe 
not  regard  it  as  simply  a  mode  of  motion]  are  rather  inclined  to  inter  that 
before  it  can  become  heat,  motion — whether  simple  or  vihratory,  as  in  the  case 
of  light  and  radiant  heat,  etc., — must  cease  to  exist  as  motion." — Dr.  J.  R. 
Mayer,  The  Forces  of  Inorganic  Nature,  pp.  257,  346. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  last  mentioned  author,  and  as 
well  in  that  of  many  others,  there  is  in  current  scientific 
discussions  a  needless  and  perplexing  confusion  of  mo- 
tions and  forces.  Motion  must  have  force  to  produce 
it;  the  latter  is  the  exponent  of  the  former.  "  Force," 
in  the  language  of  Sir  John  Herschel,  "  is  whatever 
causes  a  body  to  exist  under  a  given  condition  or  what- 
ever changes  any  of  its  relations;  whatever  tends  to 
keep  a  body  what  it  is,  or  whatever  tends  to  make  it 
different  in  any  respect  from  what  it  is."  Force,  in  its 
essence,  is  confessedly  unknown.  We  can  investigate 
its  tendencies:  we  can  do  no  more.  It  tends  to  produce 
motion,  to  modify  motion,  to  prevent  motion.  Con- 
sequently, many  prefer  to  regard  forces  as  substan- 
tial entities,  accepting  the  celebrated  definition  of  Dr. 
J.  R.  Mayer,  "  Force  is  that  which  is  expended  in 
producing  or  resisting  motion."  Force  is  not  simply 
motion. 

The  above  quotations,  however,  even  those  which 
represent  heat  as  a  mode  of  motion,  answer  the  purpose 
for  which  they  are  introduced.  They  prove  that  ad- 
vanced scientists  deny  the  materiality  of  heat.  That  is 
all  we  desire.  Heat  is  an  immaterial  force.  That 
it  should  be  proved  to  be  a  substantial  entity,  and 
not  mere  motion,  is  not  necessary  to  our  proposed 
argument. 

The  dynamic  theory  of  heat  is  adopted  by  Joule, 
Carnot,  Rumford,  Rankine,  Clausius,  Helmholtz,  Dana, 
Thomson,    Mayer,    Faraday,    Grove,    Liebig,    Maxwell, 


FORCE.  2G5 

and  Youmans, — by  nearly  all  scientists  of  the  present 
day. — Heat,  then,  may  be  regarded  as  an  immaterial 
force. 

Light. — "This  theory  [the  corpuscular]  gave  way  to  the  undulatory  one, 
which  is  generally  adopted  in  the  present  day,  and  which  regards  light  as  result- 
ing from  the  undulation  of  a  specific  fluid  to  which  the  name  of  ether  has  been 
given,  which  hypothetic  fluid  is  supposed  to  pervade  the  universe  and  to  pene- 
trate the  pores  of  all  bodies.  ...  I  stated  that  it  appeared  to  me  more  consist- 
ent with  known  facts  to  regard  light  as  resulting  from  a  vibration  or  motion  of 
the  molecules  of  matter  itself,  rather  than  from  a  specific  ether  pervading  it  .  .  . 
If  it  be  admitted  that  one  of  the  so-called  imponderables  is  a  mode  of  motion, 
then  the  fact  of  its  being  able  to  produce  the  others,  and  be  produced  by  them, 
renders  it  highly  difficult  to  conceive  some  as  molecular  motions  and  others  as 
fluids,  or  undulations  of  an  ether.  .  .  .  The  above  facts — and  many  others 
which  might  have  been  given— go  far  to  connect  light  with  motion  of  ordinary 
matter." — Prof.  W.  R.  Grove,  Correlation  of  Physical  Forces,  pp.  123,  132,  133. 

"  This  [the  fact  that  the  velocity  of  light  in  water  is  to  its  velocity  in  air  as 
3  to  4,  and  not  as  4  to  3,  as  demanded  by  the  corpuscular  theory]  finally  dis- 
posed of  the  corpuscular  theory;  though  it  had  been  conclusively  disproved  long 
before  by  certain  interference  experiments.  .  .  .  The  true  author  of  the  undu- 
latory theory  is  undoubtedly  Huygens  [1678].  .  .  .  It  was  not  until  1815,  and 
subsequent  years,  that,  in  the  hands  of  Fresnel  the  undulatory  theory  finally 
triumphed.  This  is  the  only  theory  left  possible  by  the  experiments  of  Foucault. ' ' 
—Prof.  P.  G.  Tait,  Encyc.  Brit.,  art.  "Light." 

We  need  not  multiply  quotations.  Nearly  all  scien- 
tists concede  that  light  is  immaterial  though  not  all  ac- 
cept the  theory  that  it  is  an  undulation  in  a  luminiferous 
ether.  Prof.  J.  Clerk  Maxwell,  for  example,  though  a 
firm  believer  in  the  immateriality  of  light,  defends  what 
he  denominates  an  electro-magnetic  theory  of  light. 
The  unanimity  with  which  modern  scientists  regard 
Hght  as  immaterial  is  the  only  point  upon  which  em- 
phasis is  laid. 

Electricity. — "  The  early  theories  regard  its  [electricity's]  phenomena  as 
produced  either  by  a  single  fluid  idio-repulsive,  but  attractive  of  all  matter,  or 
else  as  produced  by  two  fluids,  each  idio-repulsive,  but  attractive  of  the  other. 
...  I  think  I  shall  not  be  unsupported  by  many  who  have  attentively  studied 
electrical  phenomena,  in  viewing  them  as  resulting,  not  from  the  action  of  a 


2GG  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

fluid  or  fluids,  but  as  molecular  polarization  of  ordinary  matter,  .  .  .  the  cur- 
rent being  nothing  else  than  this  molecular  transmission  of  chemical  affinity 
.  .  .  electricity  would  appear  to  consist  in  transmitted  chemical  affinity.  .  .  . 
Electricity  is  that  afiection  of  matter  or  mode  of  force  which  distinctly  and 
beautifully  relates  other  modes  of  force." — Prof.  W.  R.  Grove,  Correlation  of 
Physical  Forces,  pp.  83,  84. 

"  If  the  universe  be  delivered  over  to  the  undisturbed  action  of  its  physical 
processes,  all  force  will  finally  pass  into  the  form  of  heat." — Prof.  H.  L.  F. 
Helmholtz,  Interaction  of  Natural  Forces,  p.  229. 

As  he  deems  it  impossible  that  matter  should  cease  to 
exist;  and  as  he  regards  heat  as  immaterial;  and  as  he 
considers  electricity  one  of  the  physical  forces,  carrying 
on  the  "  physical  processes  "  of  the  universe, — it  is  evident 
that  he  believes  in  the  immateriality  of  electricity. 

Magnetism. — "Magnetism  .  .  .  will  produce  electricity,  but  with  this  pe- 
culiarity— that  in  itself  it  is  static;  and  therefore,  to  produce  a  dynamic  force, 
motion  must  be  superadded  to  it:  it  is  in  fact  directive,  not  motive,  altering  the 
direction  of  other  forces,  but  not  in  strictness  initiating  them.  .  .  .  Magnetism 
will  directly  affect  the  other  forces,  light,  heat  and  chemical  affinity,  and  change 
their  direction  or  mode  of  motion.  .  .  .  The  same  arguments  which  have  been 
submitted  to  the  reader  as  to  the  other  affections  of  matter  being  modes  of  mo- 
lecular motion  are  therefore  applicable  to  magnetism." — Prof.  W.  R.  Grove, 
Correlation  of  Physical  Forces,  pp.  142,  145,  151. 

The  expression  "modes  of  motion,"  as  applied  by 
Prof.  Grove  to  these  several  forces,  is  not  to  be  inter- 
preted as  an  unqualified  denial  on  his  part  that  forces 
may  be  substantial  entities.  He  carefully  guards  him- 
self against  making  any  such  denial.     He  says: 

"They  [the  physical  forces]  have  no  commencement  which  we  can  trace. 
We  must  ever  refer  them  back  to  some  antecedent  force  equal  in  amount  to  that 
produced,  and  therefore  the  word  initiation  cannot  in  strictness  apply,  but  must 
be  taken  as  signifying  the  force  selected  as  the  first;  this  is  another  reason  why 
the  idea  of  abstract  causation  is  inapplicable  to  physical  production." 

Chemical  Affinity.—"  We  have  arrived  at  a  knowledge  of  the  consistency 
of  magnetism  with  electricity,  and  also  of  chemical  action  and  of  heat  with  all 
the  former:  and  if  we  see  not  the  consistency  between  gravitation  with  any  of 
these  forms  of  force,  I  am  strongly  of  the  mind  that  it  is  because  of  our  ignor- 
ance only." — Dr.  Faraday,  The  Conservation  of  Force,  p.  376. 


FORCE.  2G7 

11  Those  who  admit  the  possibility  of  the  common  origin  of  all  physical  force 
and  also  acknowledge  the  principle  of  conservation,  apply  that  principle  to  the 
sum  total  of  the  force.  .  .  .  There  may  be  but  one  cause  ....  convertible  in 
its  manifestations." — Idem,  pp.  380,  381.* 

IV.    Force  is  convertible. 

As  already  intimated,  forces  may  assume  new  forms. 
Push,  applied  to  an  immovable  body,  produces  heat,  the 
amount  being-  proportioned  to  the  amount  of  pressure. 
Push  applied  to  a  movable  body  produces  motion.  The 
body  in  motion,  if  arrested,  becomes  heated;  i.  e.,  mo- 
tion, when  arrested,  is  converted  into  heat,  this  being 
a  continuation,  under  another  form,  of  the  force  which 
impelled  the  projectile.  If  two  bodies  are  rubbed  to- 
gether, heat  is  generated.  If  the  surfaces  are  smooth,  and 
especially  if  they  are  oiled,  being  thereby  rendered  in- 
capable of  arresting  much  motion,  the  quantity  produced 
is  small.  If  the  surfaces  are  rough,  more  is  generated, 
because  more  motion  is  arrested.  In  every  case,  the 
amount  is  proportioned  to  the  amount  of  friction  in  the 
impinging  bodies,  and  is  a  continuation  of  indestructible 
force,  and  consequently  is  capable  of  re-conversion  into 
motion.  The  heat  underneath  the  boiler  of  a  locomotive 
is  converted  into  motion;  a  part  re-appears  at  the  axles 
of  the  wheels  as  heat,  which  immediately  begins  to  pro- 
duce molecular  motion  in  the  heated  parts. 

Whatever  may  be  the  character  of  the  bodies,  the 
same  amount  of  heat  is  generated  provided  the  same 
amount  of  force  is  arrested,  though  in  many  instances, 
especially  in  the  case  of  gases  and  fluids,  it  is  impossible 

*  Of  the  above  extracts,  those  from  Grove,  Helmholtz,  Mayer,  and  Faraday 
are  from  the  expositions  of  these  gentlemen  as  compiled  by  Dr.  E.  L.  Youmans 
under  the  title  The  Correlation  and  Conservation  of  Forces.  Consequently, 
the  references  are  to  pages  in  that  volume,  and  not  to  pages  in  the  original^ 
separale  treatises. 


268  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

to  determine  this,  owing  to  the  fact  that  heat  is  dissi- 
pated. In  the  case  of  elastic  bodies,  where  a  part  of  the 
force  is  continued  in  re-action,  proportionally  less  is  gen- 
erated. With  some  singular  exceptions,  bodies  when 
compressed  become  heated;  when  dilated,  become  cooler, 
imparting  their  heat  to  neighboring  bodies. 

The  heat  generated  by  motion,  or  rather  by  the  force 
producing  motion,  may  be  converted  into  light,  into 
electricity,  into  magnetism,  or  into  chemical  affinity — 
indeed  each  form  may  perhaps  be  always  present,  though 
with  varying  intensity.  It  is  conceded  that  we  rarely,  if 
ever,  witness  the  operation  of  a  single  force  in  isolated 
form.  Each  force  is  accompanied  by  an  equal  opposite 
force,  acting  in  the  same  straight  line.  The  conception 
of  a  single  force  is  an  abstraction.  Hence  Sir  Wm.  Ham- 
ilton says,  "  And  of  second  causes,  I  say,  there  must 
almost  always  be  at  least  a  concurrence  of  two  to  consti- 
tute an  effect."  The  several  physical  forces,  being  second- 
ary causes,  seldom  act  singly,  perhaps  invariably  occur  in 
combinations,  two  or  more. 

The  convertibility  of  the  physical  forces  may  also  be 
seen  if  we  begin  with  heat  instead  of  motion.  The  former 
produces  the  latter;  indeed,  Prof.  Grove  defines  it  as  a 
molecular  repulsive  force  antagonistic  to  attraction  and 
communicable  to  all  bodies  in  contiguity.  Heat  expands 
the  body  which  absorbs  it,  causing  molecular  motion; 
and  the  body  so  expanded  has  the  power  of  expanding 
all  bodies  in  proximity.  Dr.  Mayer  affirms,  M  Heat  and 
motion  are  transformable  one  into  the  other.  ...  I  have 
characterized  the  relation  which  forces  bear  to  one  an- 
other by  saying  that  they  are  different  forms  under  which 
one  and  the  same  object  makes  its  appearance."  *     Dr. 

'•  Remarks  on  the  Mechanical  Equivalent  of  Heat,"  E.  L.  Voumans'  Cor- 
relation  and  Conservation  of  Forces ^  pp.  323,  346. 


FORCE.  269 

Faraday  says,  "We  have  arrived  at  a  knowledge  of  the 
consistency  of  magnetism  with  electricity,  and  also  of 
chemical  action  and  heat  with  all  the  former."*  Prof. 
W.  R.  Grove  declares,  "  Heat,  .  .  .  which  is  capable  of 
producing  motions  directly,  is  also  capable  of  producing 
electricity,  magnetism,  and  chemical  affinity.  .  .  .  The 
primary  tendency  of  heat,  it  is  true,  is  antagonistic  to  both 
magnetism  and  chemical  affinity.  By  its  secondary  action, 
however,  it  produces  both.  .  .  .     Radiant  heat  is  light."  t 

In  like  manner,  if  we  begin  with  electricity,  the  several 
forces  can  be  produced.  Science,  which  is  not  yet  pre- 
pared to  deny  that  the  friction  of  homogeneous  bodies 
produces  electricity,  is  bold  in  asserting  that  the  friction 
of  heterogeneous  bodies  generates  it  accompanied  usually 
by  heat,  light,  magnetism  (a  force  acting  at  right  angles 
to  electrical  currents),  and  chemical  affinity.  Possibly  it 
would  be  correct  to  say  that  the  other  forces  accompany 
electricity.  Be  that  as  it  may,  electricity  can  generate 
heat.  It  can  produce  light.  It  can  produce  magnetism. 
It  can  cause  mixed  gases  to  unite.  If  a  current  of  elec- 
tricity is  passed  through  oxygen  and  hydrogen  gases, 
they  unite  and  form  water;  if  passed  through  air,  nitric 
acid  is  generated. 

Light,  as  an  initial  force,  is  capable  of  producing  the 
other  forces,  either  mediately  or  immediately.  Prof.  Grove 
says,  "Thus  [by  experiment  with  a  beam  of  sun- light] 
we  get  chemical  action  on  the  plate,  electricity  circulat- 
ing through  the  wires,  magnetism  in  the  coil,  heat  in  the 
helix,  and  motion  in  the  needles."  %  All  the  forces,  in 
one  experiment,  from  a  ray  of  sun-light  !  Light  then  is 
convertible  into  any  one  of  them. 

*  "Conservation  of  Force,"  E.  L.  Youmans'  Correlation  and  Conservation 
of  Forces,  p.  376. 

f  Correlation  of  Physical  Forces,  p.    177.  \  Idem,   p.   177. 


270  THEISM    AND    EVOLUTION. 

In  like  manner,  by  starting-  with  magnetism,  each  of  the 
others  can  be  generated.  In  proof  of  this  statement  a 
brief  quotation  will  suffice.  "  Magnetism  can,  through  the 
medium  of  electricity,  produce  light,  heat,  and  chemical 
affinity.  .  .  .  Magnetism  will  directly  affect  the  other 
forces,  light,  heat,  and  chemical  affinity,  and  change 
their  direction  or  mode  of  motion,  or,  at  all  events,  will 
so  affect  matter  subjected  to  these  forces,  that  their 
direction  is  changed."  * 

The  convertibility  of  the  forces  which  are  operative  in 
inorganic  nature  is  a  well  established  fact.  No  one,  so 
far  as  known,  is  disposed  to  call  it  in  question.  Its 
establishment  is  one  of  the  triumphs  of  science.  Dr. 
Mayer,  the  author  of  the  theory,  has  a  title  to  an  immor- 
tality of  fame. 

The  same  correlation  and  conservation  are  supposed 
to  exist  between  the  forces  operative  in  the  organic  world. 
The  forces  which  are  resident  in  living  structures  are 
convertible  inter  se.  This  portion  of  the  subject  will 
merit  attention  when  treating  of  Life  and  of  Mind. 
Meanwhile,  the  convertibility  of  the  physical  forces  may 
be  regarded  as  an  established  fact. 

V.  Force  is  indestructible. 

The  cause  is  always  equal  to  its  effects — "  causa  aequat 
effectum."  In  a  connected  series  of  causes  and  effects, 
no  term  and  no  part  of  any  term  can  become  equal  to 
zero.  An  effect  must  correspond  with,  and  be  equivalent 
to,  its  antecedent  cause  or  causes,  and  must  in  turn  be- 
come a  cause  adequate  to  the  production  of  a  subsequent 
effect  or  effects  equal  to  itself.  If  a  cause,  a,  produces  an 
effect,  b,  equal  to  itself,  and  b  produces  an  effect,  r,  equal 
to  itself,  and  c  produces  an  effect,  d,  equal  to  itself,  and 
so  on  in  regular  succession  to  z;  then  z  equals  a;  a  still 
*  Correlation  of Physical  Forces ',  p.  144. 


FORCE.  271 

lives  in  s.  If  the  succession  were  infinite,  the  last  factor 
would  be  an  exact  equivalent  to  the  first.  If  a  produces 
two  effects,  b  and  c,  equal  to  itself;  and  b  and  c  each  pro- 
duce two  effects,  ^/and  <?,/"and  g,  the  two  former  unitedly 
equal  to  b,  and  the  two  latter  unitedly  equal  to  c;  and 
if  d,  c,  f,  g  each  produce  two  effects,  h  and  z,  j  and  k, 
I  and  m,  n  and  o,  there  being  in  each  two-fold  effect  the 
exact  equivalent  of  its  cause;  then,  /i,  i,  j\  k,  /,  m,  n,  c, 
however  they  may  differ  among  themselves,  are  together 
equal  to  a.  No  force  has  been  annihilated.  A  force 
which  exhausts  itself  in  producing  an  effect  or  effects 
loses  its  identity,  but  does  not  cease  to  be.  If  it  has 
exhausted  itself  in  part,  it  subsequently  exists  partly 
in  its  effect,  and  partly  in  its  unchanged  identity.  If  it 
has  exhausted  precisely  one-tenth  of  itself  in  producing 
twenty  effects,  then  the  remaining  nine-tenths  may  be 
unchanged,  and  the  one-tenth  still  continues  to  exist  in 
its  twenty  effects.  No  force  has  been  lost.  If  the  nine- 
tenths  subsequently  produce,  either  instantaneously 
or  through  a  protracted  period,  one  hundred  effects, 
each  differing  from  the  other  both  in  its  nature  and 
in  the  measure  of  force  requisite  to  its  production, 
still  no  portion  of  the  original  force  has  been  annihi- 
lated. It  continues  in  its  effects,  which  are  themselves 
causes  of  succeeding  effects.  The  stream  of  cause  flows 
on  undiminished,  and  may  be  regarded  as  a  series  of  effects 
dependent  upon  an  Eternal  First  Cause,  or  as  a  suc- 
cession of  secondary  causes  which  must  have  originated 
in  an  Efficient  Primal  Force.  Nor  is  the  case  altered 
when  we  contemplate  a  cause  acting  in  conjunction 
with  one  or  more  other  causes  and  exhausting  itself  in 
producing  ten  thousand  effects,  in  each  of  which  it  has 
had  a  different  measure  of  efficiency;  for,  though  we 
may  be  unable  to  recognize  its  exact  equivalent  in  the 


272  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

new  forms  assumed,  we  are  impelled  alike  by  reason 
and  by  the  deductions  of  modern  science  to  conclude 
that  the  initial  force  has  not  been  destroyed.  Blended 
with  other  forces,  it  still  lives  in  ten  thousand  effects. 

The  indestructibility  of  force  is  taught  by  the  tal- 
ented Dr.  J.  R.  Mayer,  by  Prof.  Helmholtz,  by  Dr.  Far- 
aday, by  Prof.  Grove,  by  Prof.  Liebig,  by  Dr.  Carpenter, 
by  Tyndall,  Joule,  Thomson — by  nearly  all  scientists 
of  the  present  day.  Prof.  W.  R.  Grove  says,  "  In  all 
phenomena  the  more  closely  they  are  investigated 
the  more  are  we  convinced  that,  humanly  speaking, 
neither  matter  nor  force  can  be  created  or  annihilated, 
and  that  an  essential  cause  is  unattainable."  *  Prof. 
J.  Clerk  Maxwell  says:  "  The  total  energy  of  any 
body  or  system  of  bodies,  is  a  quantity  which  can  nei- 
ther be  increased  nor  diminished  by  any  mutual  action 
of  these  bodies,  though  it  may  be  transformed  into 
any  one  of  the  forces  of  which  energy  is  susceptible."  t 
Prof.  Helmholtz  affirms:  "  No  portion  of  force  can  be 
absolutely  lost."  %  Prof.  Faraday  declares:  "  The  strict 
science  of  modern  times  has  tended  more  and  more 
to  the  conviction  that  force  can  neither  be  created  nor  de- 
stroyed. ..  .  Let  us  not  admit  the  destruction  or  creation 
of  force  without  clear  and  constant  proof."  §  Dr.  W.  B. 
Carpenter  asserts:  "  As  force  is  never  lost  in  the  inorganic 
world,  so  force  is  never  created  in  the  organic.  .  .  .  Plants 
restore  to  the  inorganic  world  not  only  the  materials,  but 
the  forces  at  the  expense  of  which  the  vegetable  fabric 
was  constructed."  II     It  is  the  opinion  of  Prof.  Liebig  that, 

*  See  Yoomans1  Correlation  and  Conservation  of  Forces,  p.  199. 

f  En  eye.  Brit.,  Art. 

%  Youmans'  Correlation  and  Conservation  of  Forces,  p.  227. 

§  Idem,  pp.  359,  37S. 

||  Idem,  pp.  420.  433. 


FORCE.  273 

"  If  a  power  could  be  annihilated,  or  in  other  words,  have 
nothing  as  its  effect,  then  there  would  be  no  contradic- 
tion involved  in  the  belief  that  out  of  nothing  also  power 
could  be  created."  *  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton  affirms,  "  Omnia 
mntantur;  nihil  intcrit,  is  what  we  think,  what  we  must 
think.  .  .  We  think  the  causes  to  contain  all  that  is  con- 
tained in  the  effect;  the  effect  to  contain  nothing  which 
was  not  contained  in  the  causes.  .  .  .  We  are  unable,  on 
the  one  hand,  to  conceive  nothing  becoming  something, — 
or  on  the  other,  something  becoming  nothing.  ...  In 
thought,  causes  and  effects  are  thus,  pro  tanto,  tauto- 
logical; an  effect  always  pre-existed  potentially  in  its 
cause;  and  causes  always  continue  actually  to  exist  in 
their  effects.  There  is  a  change  of  form,  but,  we  are 
compelled  to  think,  an  identity  in  the  elements  of  exist- 
ence. .  .  .  What  is  now  considered  as  the  cause  may 
at  another  time  be  viewed  as  the  effect;  and  vice 
versa."  t 

VI.  Force  cannot  be  evolved  from  matter,  un- 
less IT  HAS  PREVIOUSLY  BEEN  INVOLVED  IN  MATTER. 

Heat,  light,  electricity,  and  magnetism  maybe  elimin- 
ated from  a  lump  of  coal.  They  are  not  coal,  nor  any  pro- 
duct of  coal.  Force  is  not  matter.  The  heat  of  the  coal 
is,  science  tells  us,  absorbed  sunlight — force  treasured  up 
in  convenient  form,  and  ready  for  man's  use.  Amber, 
if  rubbed,  gives  off  electricity.  Though  not  matter,  it 
must  have  been  involved  in  it,  or  it  could  not  have  been 
evolved  from  it.  The  flint,  if  struck,  emits  a  spark. 
The  light  must  have  been  imprisoned  therein.  These 
forces,  if  incapable  of  existing  antecedent  to  anrl  inde- 
pendent of  matter,  must  be  regarded  as  its  invariable 
attendants;  in  which  case,  the  latter  must  be  viewed  as 

*  See  Youmans'  Correlation  and  Conservation  of  Forces,  p.  388. 
f  Metaphysics  and  Logic,  pp.  533,  691. 


274  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

a  concomitant  of  the  former.  We  must  believe  that 
there  is  no  force  without  matter,  and  no  matter  with- 
out force.  Whether  the  latter  may  or  may  not  exist 
dissevered  from  the  former,  it  cannot  be  evolved  from 
it  unless  it  has  been  previously  involved  in  it. 


CHAPTER   XVI. 

FORCE  VERSUS  MATERIALISM. 

In  discussing  the  essence  of  matter  it  became  apparent 
that  the  testimony  of  science  warranted  neither  an 
assumption  of  the  eternity  of  material  existences,  nor 
their  evolution  from  nothingness.  In  the  chapter  just 
closed  it  has  been  shown  that  they  could  not  have 
evolved  from  physical  force,  for  it  is  inconceivable  that 
an  immaterial,  impersonal,  unintelligent  agent  could 
have  originated  objectivity.  The  theory  that  an  Infinite 
Personality  called  them  into  being  ex  niJiiloy  by  the  fiat 
of  His  unconditioned  Will,  is  encircled  with  fewer  difficul- 
ties. Nor  can  they  be  regarded  as  force  in  repose,  a 
species  of  congealed  energy ;  for,  though  force  can  be 
eliminated  from  matter,  it  is  not  its  transformation. 
That  the  two  are  not  identical  is  evident,  inasmuch  as 
the  former  can  be  generated  from  the  latter  in  indefinite 
amounts;  as  heat  from  iron-filings,  by  friction.  They  are 
alike  in  this,  each  demands  the  existence  of  a  Primal 
Cause  to  explain  its  origin  and  continuance.  In  other 
respects  they  are  totally  dissimilar. 

The  essence  of  force,  like  the  essence  of  matter,  is 
unknown  and  indefinable.  Consequently,  until  atheism 
is  able  to  define  its  terms,  why  should  it  object  to  the 
terms,  vital  force,  mental  force,  and  spiritual  force,  on  the 
ground  that  these  are  indefinite  and  incomprehensible? 
That  they  are  in   measure  beyond  man's  comprehension 


276  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION, 

is  conceded.  So  also  are  the  terms  matter  and  physical 
force.  To  assert  that  the  mysteries  of  nature  are  more 
explicable  upon  the  hypothesis  that  there  is  nothing 
within  its  domain  save  these  two,  does  not  lead  from 
darkness  into  light,  but  from  great  obscurity  into  still 
greater.  To  solve  all  the  mysteries  that  environ  us  is 
impossible.  There  is  mystery  above,  beneath,  around, 
within,  everywhere.  Are  the  enigmas  connected  with 
life  lessened  by  affirming:  There  is  no  "  vital  force,"  all 
its  phenomena  being  explained  by  matter  and  the  ordi- 
nary forces  ?  Are  the  intricate  problems  connected 
with  mental  activity  explained  by  affirming:  Thought  is 
"  molecular  vibration  "  in  brain-tissue,  resulting  from 
changed  physical  conditions  ?  If  we  are  forced  to  em- 
ploy a  term  that  is  partially  incomprehensible,  is  there 
any  advantage  in  substituting  one  more  general  and 
less  understandable  for  one  more  specific  and  less 
unknowable  ? 

So  likewise,  under  the  sanction  of  the  authorities 
adduced,  and  of  others  which  might  be  adduced,  we  act 
reasonably  in  concluding  that  science  does  not  pronounce 
against  the  theory  that  the  universe  continues  to  exist 
because  an  Omnipotent  Personal  Will  so  decrees;  indeed, 
we  are  safe  in  affirming  that  such  a  theory  is  regarded 
with  favor  by  advanced  science.  The  Divine  Will  is  the 
infinite  energy  which  produces  all  effects,  each  of  which, 
as  it  streams  forth  from  the  fountain  of  all  power,  be- 
comes a  cause  producing  effects,  though  quite  manifestly, 
in  the  ultimate  analysis,  there  can  be  only  one  causal 
agency — secondary  effects  and  secondary  causes  being 
in  fact  convertible  terms.  The  innumerable  forms  as- 
sumed by  what  we  denominate  physical,  cosmical,  and 
vital  forces  are  merely  the  resistless  pulsations  of  Infi- 
nite  Will-force — effects,    though   we  are   accustomed  to 


FORCE     VERSUS   MATERIALISM.  211 

designate  them  causes.  Antecedents  they  are;  not  effi- 
cient causes  in  the  strict  sense. 

Science,  then,  acting  in  its  own  legitimate  sphere,  is 
aiding  theology  in  an  unprecedented  manner.  It  is  ac- 
cumulating testimony  to  the  effect  that  all  forces  are 
convertible  into  one  force,  a  force  to  which  reason  is 
compelled  to  attribute  an  intelligent  purpose.  Scientists, 
who  ought  to  labor  cordially  with  theologians,  are  be- 
ginning to  give  us  proof,  by  demonstration,  in  favor  of 
the  reasonableness  of  faith  in  a  Personal  First  Cause. 

If  we  do  not  regard  force  as  having  its  origin  in  an 
Infinite  Personal  Will,  how  shall  we  account  for  it  ?  It 
has  not  been  proved  to  be  a  child  of  matter,  nor  an  in- 
dependent eternal  entity.  Shall  we  adopt  a  theory  in 
reference  to  the  evolution  of  the  forces  and  affirm:  If  an 
individual  animal,  with  all  its  organs,  with  its  vital  ener- 
gies and  its  mental  faculties,  is  an  evolution  from  lifeless 
matter,  blindly  groping  through  millions  of  years  after 
new  forms  in  which  to  manifest  itself;  then  we  may 
believe  that  these  mysterious  forces — correlated,  conver- 
tible, indestructible,  immaterial — have  been  evolved  from 
some  antecedent  force,  as  unlike  and  inferior  to  them  as 
man  is  unlike  and  superior  to  the  "simplest  imaginable 
organism."  Are  we  prepared  to  believe  that — as  in  the 
vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms — evolutionists  may  bewil- 
der us  with  their  attempts  to  trace  a  line  of  descent, 
shadowy  though  it  be,  back  to  "  a  homogeneous  atom  " 
of  force  ?  Is  it  reasonable  to  conjecture  that  with  two 
homogeneous  atoms,  one  of  plasson  and  one  of  force, 
lying  side  by  side  from  eternity  in  the  ocean  of  immen- 
sity, there  existed  the  potentialities  of  a  limitless  unfold- 
ing ?  And  is  the  hypothesis  of  a  God,  then,  no  longer 
necessary  ?  The  fruitlessness  of  human  effort  !  After 
the  task  has  been  performed,  and  everything  banished 


278  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

from  the  universe  except  two  homogeneous  atoms,  an 
infant  can  demolish  the  theory,  though  pronounced  ra- 
tional and  harmonious,  by  simply  asking:  Father,  who 
put  so  much  into  those  two  atoms  ? — did  God  ? 

My  child,  you  have  never  studied  science.  Go  play; 
and  let  the  immaterial  sunlight  paint  roses  on  your 
cheeks. 

Since,  then,  there  is  something  in  the  universe  besides 
matter,  viz.,  immaterial  forces,  there  certainly  is  no 
prevenient  improbability  against  the  doctrine  of  a  Per- 
sonal Spiritual  God;  nor  anything  unreasonable  in  the 
theory  that  man  is  a  spiritual  being  and  not  a  mere 
aggregation  of  material  molecules.  If  light,  heat,  elec- 
tricity, and  magnetism,  and  even  gravitation,  are  imma- 
terial, there  evidently  is  no  basis  for  the  assertion:  As 
we  know  and  can  know  nothing  in  reference  to  any  exist- 
ence except  that  of  matter,  it  is  unscientific  to  believe 
in  an  Infinite  Spirit  and  in  the  immateriality  of  mind. 
Such  an  assertion  is  in  antagonism  with  the  teachings  of 
modern  science.  This  affirms  that  the  most  powerful 
agents  in  nature  are  immaterial,  and  that  consequently 
it  is  not  irrational  to  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  spirit- 
ual First  Cause,  who  may  be — we  are  almost  constrained 
to  say,  must  be — the  Fountain-head  of  all  force;  nor  is 
it  unreasonable  to  believe  that  the  soul  of  man  is  imma- 
terial. Accordingly,  every  falling  stone,  inasmuch  as  it 
is  moving  in  obedience  to  an  immaterial  force,  testifies 
to  the  possibility  of  the  existence  of  a  Spiritual  God, 
and  as  well  to  the  probability  that  mind  is  immaterial,  the 
will  being  a  real  creative  force.  The  flash  of  lightning 
,that  splinters  the  cedar  at  my  door,  since  it  is  not  mate- 
rial, burns  upon  the  fragments  at  my  feet  the  declaration: 
A  God  may  exist,  certainly  does  exist;  the  soul  may  be 
immaterial,    quite    manifestly    is    immaterial — spiritual. 


FORCE    VERSUS   MATERIALISM.  279 

The  heat  that  warms  my  body,  being  immaterial,  tends 
to  thaw  the  doctrine  of  materialism  from  out  my  heart. 
The  morning  light,  which  bursts  in  at  my  window  and 
paints  pictures  on  the  illuminated  floor;  which  imparts 
color  to  my  cheek  and  cheerfulness  to  my  spirit;  which 
awakens  all  nature  into  activity;  inasmuch  as  it  is 
immaterial,  testifies:  There  is  no  presumption  against 
the  existence  of  the  Great  Spirit,  no  improbability 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  soul's  immateriality.  Both 
beliefs  are  rational  and  may  be  entertained,  if  argu- 
ments can  be  adduced  in  their  favor. 

Even  though  the  testimony  of  those  who  regard 
forces  as  substantial  existences,  real  entities,  should  be 
ultimately  overborne  by  that  of  those  who  regard  them 
as  mere  phenomena,  or  as  affections  of  matter,  or  as 
modes  of  motion;  still,  they  unquestionably  open  the 
gates  of  the  unseen  universe  wide  enough  to  afford 
glimpses  of  the  possibility  that  there  are  existences 
purely  spiritual.  Consequently,  the  theist  is  not  called 
upon  to  prove  them  entities.  The  testimony  that  they 
are  immaterial  answers  his  purpose.  Those  who  persist 
in  regarding  them  as  "  modes  of  motion  "  are  constrained 
to  concede  that  they  are  totally  diverse  from  matter. 
They  are  capable  of  organizing,  of  building  up,  of  con- 
trolling and  of  decomposing  material  substances.  That 
which  constructs  organisms  must  exist  before  organiza- 
tion begins,  and  consequently  must  have  an  existence 
independent  of  matter.  Force,  then,  which  is  the  only 
organizer  in  nature,  must  have  existed  prior  to  matter  and 
consequently  independent  of  it.  Reason  seems  to  teach 
that  the  First  Cause  of  all  things  must  have  been  force, 
a  Personal  Intelligent  Will. 

Again:  if  there  must  be  an  antecedent  force  which 
constructs  a  human  organism,  and  if  force  is  immaterial, 


280  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

what  valid  objection  can  be  brought  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  soul's  immateriality  ?  And  if  this  organizing  force 
must  exist  before  organization  begins,  why  may  it  not 
continue  to  exist  after  the  organism  has  perished  ? 
Modern  science,  which  some  characterize  as  atheistic, 
is  beginning  to  give  us  transporting  visions  of  spiritual 
existences  and  of  immortality. 

Before  leaving  this  part  of  the  subject,  it  may  be  well 
to  remind  the  reader  that  the  forces  of  nature  must  not  be 
so  conceived  as  to  annihilate  the  freedom  of  the  creature, 
leaving  us  the  helpless  puppets  of  an  inexorable  physical 
necessity.  No  force  is  annihilated;  no  force  is  without 
power.  Consequently,  will-force  must  be  something  in 
the  economy  of  nature.  This  question  will  be  considered 
more  fully,  especially  in  its  scientific  aspects,  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  Mind  and  its  relations  to  matter.  Meanwhile, 
we  content  ourselves  with  quoting  the  language  of  Sir 
VVm.  Hamilton  upon  this  topic: — 

"  The  assertion  of  absolute  necessity  ...  is  virtually  the  negation  of  a 
moral  universe;  consequently,  of  the  Moral  Governor  of  a  moral  universe;  in  a 
word,  atheism.  Fatalism  and  atheism  are,  indeed,  convertible  terms.  .  .  . 
How  the  will  can  possibly  be  free  must  remain  to  us,  under  the  present 
limitation  of  our  faculties,  wholly  incomprehensible.  We  cannot  conceive 
absolute  commencement;  we  cannot,  therefore,  conceive  a  free  volition.  But 
as  little  can  we  conceive  the  alternative  in  which  liberty  is  denied,  in  which 
necessity  is  affirmed.  And  in  favor  of  our  moral  nature,  the  fact  that  we  are 
free,  is  given  us  in  the  consciousness  of  an  uncompromising  law  of  Deity,  in  the 
consciousness  of  our  moral  accountability;  and  this  fact  of  liberty  cannot  be 
redargued  on  the  ground  that  it  is  incomprehensible,  for  the  doctrine  of  the 
Unconditioned  proves,  against  the  necessitarian,  that  something  may,  nay, 
must  be  true,  of  which  the  mind  is  wholly  unable  to  construe  to  itself  the 
possibility,  whilst  it  shows  that  the  objection  of  incomprehensibility  applies  no 
less  to  the  doctrine  of  fatalism  than  to  the  doctrine  of  moral  freedom." — Meta- 
physics and  Logic,  pp.  556,  557,  55S. 

If  physical  forces  are  immaterial,  there  is  no  presump- 
tion against  the  conception  that  there  may  be  a  vital 


FORCE    VERSUS   MATERIALISM.  281 

force  in  every  organism,  distinct  from  the  material  of 
which  the  organism  is  composed.  The  existence  of  this 
vital  force,  which  is  the  organizer  of  vegetable  and 
animal  structures,  cannot  be  said  to  be  an  irrational 
assumption,  since  it  is  in  accord  with  what  prevails  in 
the  non-living  universe.  It  is  in  perfect  analogy  there- 
with. If  there  are  immaterial  forces  which  operate  in 
and  through  gross,  non-living  matter,  there  is  no  ante- 
cedent improbability  in  the  existence  of  a  vital  force  which 
operates  in  and  through  living  organisms.  If  light,  heat, 
electricity,  and  magnetism  are  immaterial,  what  right 
have  we  to  say  that  vital-force,  mental-force,  and  soul- 
force  are  material  ?  Evidently,  all  objections  to  their 
being  considered  immaterial  are  removed.  If  reasonable 
arguments  can  be  presented  in  favor  of  such  a  theory 
it  may  be  entertained.  The  positive  argument  will  be 
presented  in  other  sections  of  this  volume. 

Nor  is  it  less  manifest  that  the  doctrine,  as  announced 
by  scientists,  that  each  of  the  physical  forces  is  sus- 
ceptible of  conversion  into  any  one  of  the  others,  lays 
a  foundation  upon  which  to  construct  an  argument  in 
favor  of  the  current  belief  that  will-force  does  not  need 
to  be  something  material  in  order  to  excite  muscular 
activity.  An  immaterial  cause  can  produce  changes 
in  matter,  exhausting  itself  in  the  production  of  these 
changes.  To  say  that  nothing  but  matter  can  influence 
matter  is  unscientific.  My  volition  can  be  transmuted 
into  muscular  force  sufficient  to  wind  my  watch.  The 
coiled  mainspring,  itself  an  effect  of  human  volitions, 
now  becomes  a  cause,  setting  the  machinery  in  motion, 
and  generating  heat,  though  in  small  measure.  Its 
energy — my  imprisoned  will — is  not  expended,  however, 
instantaneously.  The  construction  of  the  watch — cog- 
wheels, lever,  hands,  and  balance-wheel,  which  represent 


282  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

the  will  of  its  maker,  are  so  many  allied  causes  regulat- 
ing the  expenditure  of  the  force  communicated  by  will 
to  the  mainspring.  When  this  is  exhausted,  a  fresh  sup- 
ply must  be  imparted,  if  the  watch  is  to  continue  to 
indicate  the  hour  of  the  day.  My  volition  can  be  con- 
verted not  only  into  motion,  or  into  heat,  but  may  also 
be  transmuted  into  electricity,  or  into  magnetism.  In 
obedience  to  will-force  I  can  walk  briskly  across  the 
room  and  by  rubbing  the  soles  of  my  feet  along  the 
Brussels  carpet  can  surcharge  my  body  with  electricity. 
By  an  act  of  will  I  can  surround  myself  with  a  magnetic 
influence  which  attracts  others  or  repels  them.  The 
orator  is  a  sort  of  magnetic  battery  charged  at  will. 

Lionel  S.  Beale  remarks,  "  Muscles  may  be  made  to 
execute  the  mandates  of  the  will.  Their  contractions 
are  governed  by  mind."  This  does  not  prove  that  mind 
is  matter.  It  proves  that  mental  force  can  be  converted 
into  muscular  force;  that  the  immaterial  can  govern  the 
material. 

It  is  asserted  also,  as  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
that  force  is  indestructible.  If,  then, the  physical  forces 
are  incapable  of  annihilation,  and  if,  as  is  affirmed,  they 
are  also  immaterial,  there  evidently  is  no  antecedent 
improbability  in  the  doctrine  of  the  soul's  immortality, 
but  an  argument  from  analogy  in  its  favor.  If  physical 
force  is  indestructible,  is  it  not  illogical  to  assert  that  the 
soul,  a  spiritual  force,  perishes  with  the  body  ? 

If  other  forces  are  imperishable,  why  not  this  ?  Is  the 
disintegration  of  the  crystal  the  destruction  of  the  force 
that  held  its  molecules  together  ?  Is  the  decay  of  the 
plant  the  annihilation  of  the  forces  which  builded  it  up? 
Is  the  dissolution  of  the  body  an  end  of  the  forces  which 
aided  in  its  construction  ?  No.  Then  why  conclude 
that    death    ends   conscious    existence  ?      The    physical 


FORCE    VERSUS   MATERIALISM.  283 

forces  that  leave  the  crystal,  the  plant,  or  the  body,  are 
still  unchanged  in  their  nature.  They  exist  under  new 
forms.  Analogy  asserts,  Then  conscious  existence  also 
remains  unchanged  in  its  nature.  It  does  not  perish,  for 
force  is  indestructible.  It  does  not  become  unconscious, 
being  absorbed  into  the  infinite  ocean  of  spiritual  be- 
ing, for  forces  remain  substantially  unchanged.  They 
merely  assume  new  forms.  But  a  loss,  on  the  part  of 
man,  of  the  sense  of  personal  identity  would  be  a  radical 
change  in  the  nature  of  that  force  which  we  denominate 
soul.  Analogy  warrants  us  in  asserting,  The  conscious 
soul  may  exist  under  new  conditions,  may  assume  new 
modes  of  manifesting  its  activity;  annihilated,  it  cannot  be. 
If,  with  the  view  of  blunting  the  edge  of  this  argument, 
any  materialist  is  inclined  to  say,  It  has  not  been  proved, 
nor  can  it  be  proved,  that  a  physical  force  either  exists, 
or  can  exist,  dissevered  from  matter;  we  answer,  It  has 
not  been  proved,  nor  can  it  be  proved,  that  the  soul  at  the 
death  of  the  body  may  not  construct  for  itself  an  invisible 
material  tabernacle.  If  it  constructed  for  itself  a  "  terres- 
trial body,"  may  it  not  also  construct  for  itself  a  "  celestial 
body  "?  This  at  least  is  true,  The  gratuitious  assumption 
that  the  soul,  when  dissevered  from  its  present  body,  is  in 
a  disembodied  condition  and  must  therefore  perish,  has 
no  cogency  against  the  argument  for  its  continued  exist- 
ence. The  unsupported_assumptions  that  the  soul  is 
bodiless  when  it  parts  from  its  clay  dwelling,  and  that 
spirit  cannot  exist  apart  from  matter,  have  no  weight 
against  the  reasoning  from  analogy  that  spiritual  force  is 
indestructible.  Argument  is  not  refuted  by  counter  as- 
sumption. Those  who  accept  the  doctrines  of  Christian- 
ity have  as  good  a  right  as  those  who  reject  them  to 
make  conjectures.  If  it  is  conjectured  that  the  soul,  when 
it  parts  from  the  present  body,  takes  upon  itself  another, 


284  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

which  may  perhaps  have  been  its  enswathement  within 
the  perishable  casket,  or  if  it  is  assumed  that  spirit  may 
exist  without  a  material  accompaniment,  have  such  con- 
jectures less  cogency  than  those  which  they  antagonize  ? 
Apparently,  they  have  more.  The  former  may  be  sup- 
ported by  reasoning,  and  is  perhaps  Scriptural,  being  pos- 
sibly the  doctrine  taught  by  Paul.*  Nor  is  the  second 
irrational  and  inconceivable;  since,  if  physical  forces  are 
immaterial  in  their  nature  and  spiritual  in  their  origin, 
there  is  no  apparent  contradiction  in  assuming  that  soul- 
force  may  exist  independent  of  matter,  even  though 
this  may  not  be  in  accordance  with  the  beliefs  of  some 
materialists. 

The  above  line  of  reasoning  is  not  to  be  understood  as 
conveying  the  intimation  that  material  causes  are  con- 
vertible into  physical  forces.  If  the  cause  is  matter,  the 
effect  must  be.  Of  a  physical  force,  the  effect  is  physical. 
Force  is  spiritual  and  is  incapable  of  being  transformed 
into  matter.  It  is  indestructible.  Matter  is  incapable  of 
ceasing  to  exist.  In  the  burning  of  coal,  force  is  elimi- 
nated; none  of  the  material  is  transmuted  into  force. 
The  difference  between  the  two  is  one  of  kind,  and  not 
merely  of  degree. 

There  are  certain  chasms,  broad  and  fathomless,  which 
materialism  has  never  bridged,  and  it  is  reasonably  safe  to 
affirm,  never  will  bridge; — the  abyss  between  matter  and 
force,  between  the  not-living  and  the  living,  between 
brain  and  mind,  between  the  volitional  nerves  and  the  re- 
sponsive nerves.  Materialists  have  labored  to  expel  every- 
thing from  the  universe  save  matter.  They  have  failed. 
Some  facts  refuse  to  be  explained  on  their  hypothesis. 

The  reader  is  also  reminded  that  reason  impels  the 
conviction  that  evolution  can  be  no  more  than  the  evolv- 

*  I  Cor.  xiv.  36-54. 


FORCE    VERSUS   MATERIALISM.  285 

ing  of  what  was  previously  involved.  More  than  this  is 
not  evolution,  but  creation. 

Consequently,  to  suppose  that  matter  could  originate 
force — an  evolution  without  an  antecedent  involution — is 
to  imagine  that  an  effect  can  occur  without  a  cause.  The 
body  cannot  originate  soul,  though  life  can  construct  a 
material  organism.  Until  it  shall  be  proved  that  matter 
can  originate  force,  there  will  be  one  crushing  argument 
against  the  spontaneous  generation  of  life  from  pre-exist- 
ing inorganic  substances;  and  after  it  shall  have  been 
proved  that  it  can  evolve  the  physical  forces,  even  though 
not  previously  involved,  it  will  remain  to  prove  that  it 
can  evolve  vital  forces  which  had  never  been  imprisoned 
in  it.  "  Vivum  ex  vivo,"  "vis  ex  vi,"  "  materia  ex  ma- 
teria," may  be  regarded  as  established  principles,  at  least 
so  far  as  reason  and  observation  are  able  to  determine. 
Before  we  are  at  liberty  to  assume  that  matter  can  orig- 
inate force,  either  physical  or  vital,  we  must  prove  that  an 
effect  does  not  need  to  be  contained  in  its  cause;  that 
the  less  can  produce  the  greater;  that  a  material  substance, 
possessing  the  properties  of  extension  and  figure,  may 
produce  a  something  possessing  diametrically  opposite 
properties. 

The  logician  can  never  surrender  belief  in  the  doctrine 
of  causation.  Wherever  he  discovers  the  evolution  of 
force  from  matter,  he  knows  there  must  be  an  evolving 
agent;  and  if  the  evolution  is  with  design,  he  is  certain 
there  must  be  a  designer.  He  is  equally  well  assured  that 
no  evolver,  however  powerful,  and  no  designer,  however 
intelligent,  can  evolve  that  which  has  not  been  involved. 
Possibly  man  may  yet  be  able  to  get  out  of  matter  all 
that  has  been  put  into  it;  but  it  is  certain  he  will  never 
be  able  to  get  from  it,  what  has  not  been  put  into  it. 
Involution    and    evolution    are    equal.     This    belief    is 


286  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

necessitated  by  the  established  doctrine  of  the  persist- 
ence of  force. 

The  bearing1  of  these  principles  upon  the  doctrine  of 
the  evolution  of  the  various  species  of  plants  and  animals 
from  a  few  primordial  germs  is  apparent.  Original  germs 
could  of  course  only  evolve  what  had  been  previously  in- 
volved. Evolution  affords  no  support  to  atheism.  You 
may  unwind  the  strips  of  linen  from  an  Egyptian  mum- 
my. You  will  find  nothing  there  but  what  was  put  there. 
Nor  can  you  divest  yourself  of  this  conviction,  though 
ten  thousand  human  voices  are  shouting  in  your  ear:  You 
did  not  see  this  corpse  wrapped  in  linen;  no  living  being 
saw  it;  no  embalmer  of  the  present  day  can  tell  you  how 
it  was  done;  it  may  have  been  done  by  "a  fortuitous  con- 
currence "  of  the  forces  of  nature,  which  have  produced 
marvelous  results; — there  was  no  involver.  After  atheism 
has  succeeded  in  proving  that  God  has  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  world  since  life  throbbed  in  one  little  germ,  it 
will  find  itself  confronted  with  a  still  more  difficult  task, 
the  banishment  of  the  involver  of  that  germ  from  the 
universe. 


CHAPTER   XVII. 

LIFE  AND  ITS  RELATIONS  TO  MATTER. 

In  order  to  direct  attention  more  fully  to  the  claims 
made  by  atheistic  forms  of  evolution,  it  is  necessary  to 
invite  the  reader  to  a  consideration  of  the  problems  in- 
volved in  the  term  Life,  and  to  the  solutions  given  there- 
to by  those  who  repudiate  belief  in  the  being  of  God. 
Having  journeyed  with  the  uncompromising  evolutionist 
over  extended  fields, — the  origin  of  man;  spontaneous 
generation;  primordial  germs;  the  origin  and  essence  of 
matter;  the  nature,  relations,  and  genesis  of  the  physical 
forces;  the  law  of  continuity, — in  which  fields  he  has 
labored  with  unwearied  assiduity,  and  from  which  he  has 
brought  valuable  treasures  to  the  temple  of  truth;  it  is 
necessary  to  follow  him  in  his  investigations  into  the  na- 
ture of  life.  An  attempt  must  be  made  to  furnish  answers, 
probable  if  not  incontrovertible,  to  the  following  ques- 
tions: Is  life  mere  mechanism  ? — Is  life  some  one  of  the 
physical  forces  ? — Is  life  a  mode  of  motion  ? — Is  life  a 
mere  aggregation  of  the  life  of  an  infinite  number  of 
infinitesimal  bioplasts  ? — Is  life  one  of  the  affections  of 
matter,  which  has  two  sets  of  properties,  the  physical 
and  the  spiritual — a  double-faced  unity? — Is  life  what 
Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  defines  it,  "The  definite  combi- 
nation of  heterogeneous  changes,  both  simultaneous 
and    successive,    in    correspondence '  with   external    co- 


288  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION 

existences  and  sequences  "  ? — Is  life  a  substantive  entity  ? 
— What  is  the  origin  of  life  ? 

A  discussion  of  these  and  kindred  topics  is  necessary 
to  an  investigation  of  the  relations,  friendly  and  antag- 
onistic, which  theistic  conceptions  of  the  universe  bear 
to  the  theory  of  evolution  as  advocated  by  eminent 
thinkers  with  an  array  of  learning,  with  a  measure  of 
boldness,  and  with  attractiveness  in  style,  that  bewilder 
the  mind  and  rivet  attention  even  when  they  do  not  suc- 
ceed in  securing  intellectual  assent. 

To  the  question,  What  is  life  ?  various  answers  have 
been  given.  No  one  of  these,  however,  meets  the  de- 
mands of  science,  though  some  are  as  ingenious  as  they 
are  elaborate,  and  as  pretentious  as  they  are  profound. 
The  term,  it  must  be  conceded,  is  as  yet  undefined. 

With  the  view  of  ascertaining  the  present  status  of 
the  intricate  question,  and  in  the  hope  of  directing  atten- 
tion to  the  conflicting  opinions  which  prevail,  the  task 
is  undertaken  of  examining  the  more  noteworthy  at- 
tempts that  have  been  made  to  define  the  incomprehen- 
sible term. 

These  tentative  definitions  may  be  classified,  for  the 
purpose  in  view,  under  two  heads: — 

I.  Those  which  regard  life  as  mere  mechanism. 

II.  Those  which  regard  it  as  an  immaterial,  substan- 
tive entity,  capable  of  controlling  both  matter  and  inor- 
ganic forces. 

IS   LIFE   MERE   MECHANISM  ? 

Life  has  been  defined  by  Haeckel  as  "  a  connected 
chain  of  very  complicated  material  phenomena  ....  of 
atoms  placed  together  in  a  most  varied  manner."* 

This  may  be  accepted  as  a  specimen  of  the  definitions 

*  History  of  Creation,  vol.  i.  p.  199. 


LIFE    AND    ITS    RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  2bi) 

furnished  by  the  materialistic  school  of  philosophy.  It 
assumes,  as  materialism  invariably  does,  that  science  is 
competent  to  assert  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  universe 
except  matter  and  its  forces.  The  latter,  modern  mate- 
rialists are  disposed  to  regard  as  modes  of  motion.  Life, 
accordingly,  must  be  viewed  either  as  "a  particular  ar- 
rangement of  the  molecules  of  matter,"  or  as  "  one  of  the 
modes  of  motion,"  a  connected  series  of  changes  produced 
by  the  ordinary  physical  forces. 

Any  theory  which  regards  life  as  "a  particular  ar- 
rangement of  the  molecules  of  matter" — an  arrangement 
having  such  diversities  that  each  species  of  plants  and 
animals,  indeed  each  individual  plant  and  animal,  by 
virtue  of  a  slightly  different  arrangement,  possesses 
characteristics  differing  from  those  possessed  by  others 
— is  radically  defective.  The  material  and  the  vital, 
though  frequently  united,  are  two  distinct  realities;  and 
their  mysterious  union  is  more  readily  explained  on  the 
assumption  that  life  is  a  substantive  entity,  capable  of 
employing  chemical  and  physical  forces  in  the  production 
and  maintenance  of  an  individual  material  organism,  than 
by  assuming  that  life  is  a  phenomenon  of  material  mole- 
cules when  arranged  in  certain  ways.  The  chasm  be- 
tween the  living  and  the  not-living  is  too  broad  to  be 
bridged  by  molecular  arrangement.  To  regard  life,  not 
merely  as  an  evolution,  but  as  a  particular  phase  of  ma- 
terial evolution,  furnishes  no  explanation  of  the  origin  of 
conscious  existence;  nor  is  it  possible  to  believe  that  the 
will,  which  is  capable  of  setting  the  machinery  of  the  in- 
dividual organism  in  motion,  is  the  result  of  a  specific 
arrangement  of  material  atoms.  Hence  Prof.  Tyndall 
concedes:  "  The  continuity  between  molecular  processes 
and  the  phenomena  of  consciousness  is  the  rock  upon 
which  materialism    must    inevitably   split    whenever  it 


290  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

pretends  to  be  a  complete  philosophy  of  the  human 
mind."  He  approvingly  quotes  the  language  of  DuBois 
Reymond:  "  It  is  absolutely  and  forever  inconceivable 
that  a  number  of  carbon,  hydrogen,  nitrogen,  and  oxy- 
gen atoms  should  be  otherwise  than  indifferent  to  their 
position  and  motion,  past,  present,  and  future."  Prior 
to  1875  Prof-  Tyndall  viewed  materialism  as  an  inade- 
quate explanation  of  the  phenomena  of  conscious  life. 
Indeed,  even  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  whom  materialists 
would  regard  as  competent  authority,  concedes  that, 
"  The  proximate  chemical  principles,  or  chemical  units, 
— albumen,  fibrine,  gelatine — or  the  hypothetical  proteine 
substance,  cannot  possess  the  property  of  forming  the 
endlessly  varied  structures  of  animal  forms." 

The  mechanical  theory  of  life,  even  when  aided  by  the 
hypothesis  that  the  universe  is  pervaded  by  "  mind  stuff" 
— a  hypothetical,  imponderable,  impalpable,  exhaustless, 
invisible  material  potentiality,  having  subtle  influences 
discoverable  through  the  microscope  of  a  powerful  imag- 
ination and  filling  the  interstices  between  the  molecules 
of  the  hypothetical  ether  which  is  supposed  to  pervade 
all  interstellar  spaces,  being  extremely  mobile,  and 
exceedingly  complex  in  its  molecular  structure,  from  the 
minute  particles  of  which  individual  organisms  are 
produced  by  physical  agencies,  each  organism  being 
capable  of  evolving  a  definite  number  of  harmonious 
combinations, — is  about  as  satisfactory  an  explanation  of 
life,  as  is  the  assumption,  as  an  explanation  of  musical 
phenomena,  that  the  music  of  the  piano  is  the  result  of 
mechanical  forces  operating  in  the  instrument  itself,  no 
skilled  hand  directed  by  an  intelligent  will  being  needed 
to  evoke  symphonies,  even  those  of  Mozart  or  of  Bee- 
thoven. It  is  possible  to  affirm  that  the  music  is  due  to 
successive  vibrations  of  material  substances;  that  there 


LIFE    AND    ITS   RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  291 

is  an  intimate  relation  between  the  keys,  the  strings,  the 
pedals,  and  the  sounding-board ;  that  the  form  of  the  instru- 
ment facilitates  music  and  consequently  must  be  a  result 
of  "  the  survival  of  the  fittest"  ;  that  the  primordial  piano, 
in  its  material  structure,  must  have  been  an  effect  of  "  the 
fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms  during  the  cooling  of  some 
planet;  that  its  musical  power  must  have  been  evolved  in 
intimate  correlation  with  its  material  form  from  a  quasi- 
musical  material,  "  harmony  stuff,"  which  once  pervaded 
immensity,  and  probably  does  yet;  that,  consequently, 
the  music  of  the  piano  is  an  effect  of  mechanical  forces 
operating  in  the  instrument  itself — all  of  which  the  sci- 
entific world  is  challenged  to  disprove. 

The  teleologist,  if  indisposed  to  accept  this  explana- 
tion of  the  origin  of  musical  instruments  in  general,  and 
of  pianos  in  particular,  may  answer:  Effects,  evincing 
intelligent  design,  cannot  be  produced  by  purely 
mechanical  agencies.  Forces  cannot  prove  instrumental 
in  the  production  of  intelligent  results,  except  as  they  are 
directed  and  controlled  by  an  intelligent  will.  This 
assertion  no  one  is  called  upon  to  prove.  If  an  adverse 
reasoner  insists  that  material  molecules  can  so  arrange 
themselves  as  to  originate  life,  or  that  physical  forces  can 
produce  life,  he  must  present  such  evidence  as  compels 
belief,  or  such  at  least  as  renders  the  theory  credible. 
Until  this  is  done,  reason  impels  the  belief  that  design, 
which  is  manifest  in  everything  having  life,  implies  the 
existence  of  a  designer;  intelligent  results  presuppose  an 
intelligent  cause.  Consequently,  though  I  may  not  be 
able  to  see  the  pianist  at  the  key-board;  though  con- 
vinced that  he  does  not  sit  on  the  stool  in  front  of  the 
instrument,  I  know  he  exists  somewhere,  even  though  it 
may  be  in  some  distant  city,  the  determinations  of  his 
will  being  conveyed  to  the  keys  by  electrical  currents. 


292  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Even  though  one  should  be  unable,  after  inspection,  to 
discover  any  connection  between  the  instrument  and  the 
player,  he  would  still  be  forced  by  the  principle  of 
causality  to  believe  that  a  pianist  existed  somewhere. 
If,  however,  he  is  not  constrained  to  believe  that  every 
effect  must  have  an  adequate  cause,  he  has  as  valid  a 
right  to  make  assertions  as  the  materialist  has.  The 
assertion  that  life  is  the  pianist  is  a  sufficient  refutation 
of  the  assertion  that  life  is  the  piano,  and  is  quite  as 
logical.  As  the  pianist  may  live  after  the  piano  has 
crumbled  to  dust,  is  the  doctrine  of  immortality  unrea- 
sonable ?  Before  it  can  be  proved  that  the  soul  perishes 
with  the  body,  life  and  mentality  being  only  phenomena 
of  ever-changing  material  molecules,  planets  and  even 
suns  may  go  on  cooling  until  they  have  become  icebergs. 
Before  the  preponderance  of  evidence  shall  be  in  favor 
of  such  a  theory,  hypothetical  "mind  stuff," — diffused 
through  hypothetical  ether,  by  the  aid  of  which  it  is 
sought  to  banish  God  from  a  universe  in  which  every 
living  thing  testifies  to  His  existence, — will  have  time 
sufficient,  if  it  has  power  adequate,  to  evolve  an  Infinite 
Intelligence,  of  which  it  seems  to  be  giving  promise  in 
that  it  has  already  evolved  finite  intellects.  Indeed,  if 
some  ambitious  theorist  should  choose  to  assert  that  the 
principle  of  evolution — which  is  apparently  the  only 
thing  in  the  universe  which  does  not  need  to  be  evolved 
— has  already  succeeded  in  evolving  an  Omniscient 
Personality,  could  the  assertion  be  disproved  ?  If  the 
atheistic  evolutionist  were  asked  to  bow  in  adoration  at 
the  foot-stool  of  this  Infinite  Majesty,  could  valid  reasons 
be  given  why  this  request  should  be  characterized  as 
raving  fanaticism  ? 

Every  effect  must  have  an  adequate  cause.     An  effect 
evincing  design  must  have  an  intelligent  cause.     If  there 


LIFE    AND    ITS    RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  293 

is  any  axiomatic  truth  more  clearly  inwoven  with  human 
reason  than  another,  it  is  this.  It  deals,  however,  a  death- 
blow to  materialism.  When  the  alternative  is  presented 
of  regarding  life  as  mere  mechanism,  or  as  a  substantive 
entity  capable  of  directing  physical  forces,  reason  is 
not  left  in  doubt  which  to  accept.  Its  testimony  is 
emphatic. 

In  the  opinion  of  some,  electricity  is  the  efficient 
agency  in  the  production  of  the  succession  of  molecular 
changes  which  constitute  life,  whether  those  changes 
are  restricted  to  the  possible  arrangements  of  inde- 
structible atoms,  or  are  extended  to  include  new  affec- 
tions assumed  by  matter  under  each  new  combination. 
As  electricity  is  capable  of  effecting  new  combinations 
of  material  molecules,  it  is  assumed  that  it  may  also 
cause  such  changes  as  pass  under  the  term  life.  Again, 
by  others  it  is  assumed  that  as  under  some  circum- 
stances electricity  can  produce  heat,  or  light,  or  chem- 
ical affinity,  or  magnetism,  or  motion,  it  can  also,  under 
unknown  conditions,  produce  all  vital  phenomena.  That 
is,  though  electricity,  as  ordinarily  known  to  us,  is  not 
life,  it  may  nevertheless  be  transmuted  into  life. 

We  are  thus  brought  to  a  consideration  of  the  as- 
sumption, Life  a  mode  of  motion;  either  one  of  the  usu- 
ally accepted  modes  of  motion — light,  heat,  electricity, 
magnetism,  chemical  affinity — or  a  mode  of  motion  no 
more  unlike  one  of  these,  than  these  are  unlike  one 
another. 

In  refutation  of  the  theory  that  life  is  electricity,  it  is 
competent  to  affirm  that  in  that  case  directly  opposite 
qualities  must  co-inhere  in  one  and  the  same  immate- 
rial, non-substantive,  "  simple  succession  of  molecular 
changes."  It  has  mind,  and  it  has  no  mind.  It  has  the 
phenomena  of  life  and  may  be  lifeless,  for  science  asserts 


294  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

that  electricity  may  be  "latent."*  It  must  be  death,  for 
too  much  in  the  body  causes  death.  If  death  may  be 
caused  by  an  excess  of  life,  why  is  the  electric  eel,  when 
dead,  no  longer  a  surcharged  battery?  Is  it  inconceiv- 
able that  life  should  be  capable  of  employing  electricity 
as  its  agent  ? 

Others  are  inclined  to  regard  life  as  heat.  Certainly 
heat,  within  a  limited  range,  is  indispensable  to  the  con- 
tinuance of  life.  Too  much  heat,  or  too  little,  is  alike 
incompatible  with  either  actual  or  potential  vitality.  If 
life  is  to  be  defined  as  heat,  because  the  latter  is  an  inva- 
riable attendant  on  the  former,  why  may  it  not  be  re- 
garded as  water,  which  is  also  indispensable  to  its  exist- 
ence, ninety  per  cent  of  the  human  embryo  consisting  of 
this  fluid  ?  It  is  indeed  true  that  some  of  the  simpler 
forms  of  vegetable  life  can  undergo  desiccation  to  such 
an  extent  that  life  is  seemingly  extinct,  and  yet,  on 
receiving  moisture,  revivification  may  take  place  after 
protracted  periods  of  such  arrested  vitality.  But  re- 
vivification can  also  take  place  after  the  suspension  of 
vital  functions  consequent  on  the  loss  of  heat. 

Without  examining  each  theory  possible  under  the 
comprehensive  statement,  "Life  is  some  one  of  the 
ordinary  physical  forces,  each  of  which  is  a  mode  of 
motion,"  we  content  ourselves  with  an  attempted  refuta- 
tion of  the  theory  as  a  whole.  Strauss  asks,  "  If  under 
certain  conditions,  motion  is  transformed  into  heat,  why 
may  it  not,  under  other  conditions,  be  transformed  into 
sensation  ?  " 

*  Modern  science  has  given  us  "  latent  heat,"  "  invisible  light,"  "hypothet- 
ical ether,"  and  "  theoretical  mind-stuff"  as  well  as  "  latent  electricity"  ;  and 
this,  while  inveighing  against  subtle  influences.  Are  we  not  justified  in  ex- 
pressing the  hope  that  it  may  come  to  accept  the  theory  of  "  vital  force";  that 
in  the  future,  when  it  is  to  achieve  its  greatest  triumphs,  it  may  proclaim  itself 
the  defender  of  the  doctrine  of  an  invisible,  infinite,  spiritual  Personality  ? 


LIFE    AND    ITS    RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  295 

Until  proof  is  furnished  that  motion  can  be  trans- 
muted into  sensation,  no  attempt  need  be  made  to  refute 
the  unfounded  theory.  Again  he  asserts,  "  A  part  of  the 
sum-total  of  matter  emerges  from  time  to  time  out  of 
the  usual  course  of  its  motions  into  special  chemico- 
organic  combinations."  Judging  from  the  confidence 
with  which  this  assertion  is  made,  one  would  suppose  that 
its  author  had  frequently  seen  matter  forsaking  its  "  usual 
course  of  motions  "  to  enter  into  "  special  chemico-organic 
combinations,"  or  at  least  had  one  or  more  experiments 
upon  which  the  affirmation  rested — a  few  metaphysical 
arguments  at  least.  No:  the  statement  is  an  unsupported 
hypothesis.  There  is  no  proof  that  "  matter  from  time 
to  time  emerges  out  of  the  usual  course  of  its  motions." 

No  attempt  is  made  to  defend  any  conception  of  life 
which  interferes  with  the  assumption  that  it  may  and 
does  employ  physical  forces  as  its  agents.  There  is 
mechanism.  There  are  physical  forces  at  work  in  every 
living  organism.  There  are  chemical  affinities.  There 
are  electrical  currents  in  organized  beings.  It  is  as- 
sumed, however,  that  in  animal  and  rational  organisms 
there  is  nothing  save  matter  and  its  forces.  Vital  and 
mental  forces,  as  something  distinct  from  matter,  are 
entirely  ignored;  and  yet,  without  these,  how  shall  the 
phenomena  of  life  be  accounted  for  ?  Is  it  possible  to 
conclude  that  because  the  locomotive  has  driving  wheels, 
and  steel  axles,  and  iron  rails  under  it,  and  a  boiler,  and 
a  supply  of  coal,  and  a  sufficiency  of  water,  and  nicely 
fitting  pistons,  and  handsomely  constructed  cars  attached 
to  it;  therefore,  to-morrow,  at  twelve  o'clock,  having 
turned  itself  around,  reversed  the  seats  in  the  cars,  and 
kindled  a  fire  in  the  furnace,  it  will  start  without  an 
engineer  from  Philadelphia  for  Cincinnati,  stopping  on 
its  way  at  such  cities  as  have  connections  with  other 


296  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

rail-roads,  halting  for  a  fresh  supply  of  coal  and  water 
where  these  may  be  had,  running  at  a  particular  rate 
of  speed  to  Pittsburgh  and  with  accelerated  speed  beyond, 
emitting  a  shrill  whistle  at  every  road-crossing,  putting 
on  brakes  when  running  down  inclined  planes,  increasing 
the  amount  of  steam  when  ascending  the  mountainous 
regions  of  Pennsylvania,  pausing  twenty  minutes  at  meal- 
hours  three  times  a  day  to  afford  passengers  an  oppor- 
tunity of  eating,  making  these  stops  where  victuals  are 
in  readiness, — all  this  through  the  intelligence  concealed 
in  iron  ? 

If  any  one  recommends  acceptance  of  the  theory  that 
the  ordinary  forces  of  nature,  without  direction  from  a 
superintending  intelligence,  can  produce  the  phenomena 
of  life,  he  should  do  more  than  assert  that  some  scien- 
tists accept  it;  that  they  present  arguments  in  its  favor; 
that  they  expect  to  present  unanswerable  proof  by  and 
by,  that  they  prophesy  that  in  the  next  generation  every 
one  will  believe  it,  that  in  fact  nearly  every  intelligent 
person  does  now,  except  "  the  illiberal,"  "the  bigoted," 
"  the  prejudiced,"  "  the  narrow-minded,"  and  "  the 
despicable  orthodox  dupes."  He  must  furnish  evidence 
that  physical  forces  are  equal  to  the  production  of 
such  effects.  He  need  not  inflict  upon  his  antagonist 
the  prophetic  science  that  is  in  the  clenched  fist  of  the 
future.  The  next  generation  will  be  able  to  do  its 
own  thinking;  and  what  it  cannot  refute,  it  will  no 
doubt  respect.  Neither  God,  nor  the  equity  which  is 
the  child  of  evolution,  calls  upon  this  age  to  fight 
enemies  as  yet  unborn.  Consequently,  until  the  unan- 
swerable arguments  are  presented,  reason  will  con- 
tinue to  constrain  the  belief  that  physical  forces — 
though  sufficiently  potent,  if  directed  by  an  intelli- 
gent   will,    to    convey    Mount    Blanc    to    the    distant 


LIFE    AND    ITS   RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  297 

Alcyone — are  in  themselves  powerless  to  produce  intel- 
ligent results. 

Coming  now  to  the  naked  assertion,  "  Life  is  some 
mode  of  motion,"  the  reader  is  invited  to  a  consideration 
of  the  following  facts. 

1.  Those  who  consider  life  a  mode  of  motion,  and 
regard  the  living  and  the  not-living  as  substantially 
one,  can  furnish  no  explanation  of  the  difference  between 
a  living  organism  and  the  same  organism  when  dead. 
They  cannot  tell  us  the  difference  between  a  seed  when 
its  germ  has  vitality  and  the  same  seed  when  vitality  is 
lost.  The  most  they  can  do  is  to  assert  that  the  one 
differs  from  the  other  in  degree  only,  not  in  kind.  Life 
is  a  thing  of  degrees.  The  crystal,  on  this  theory,  must 
be  regarded  as  having  life.  The  stone  is  a  "  creature." 
Man  is  a  thing.  Certainly,  it  seems  quite  as  reasonable 
to  assert  that  the  difference  between  a  living  germ  and 
one  incapable  of  development  is,  that  one  has  "  vital 
force"  and  the  other  has  not — the  difference  being  the 
same  as  that  which  yawns  between  the  living  and  the 
not-living,  between  the  crystal  and  the  moneron.  It 
seems  like  a  misapprehension  of  the  term  "  Life,"  to  talk 
about  the  life  of  a  piece  of  quartz.  It  tends  to  inextric- 
able confusion.  To  appearances,  one  might  as  well  talk 
about  the  ponderability  of  moonshine,  or  the  materiality 
of  a  shadow,  or  the  contents  of  a  perfect  vacuum,  or  the 
conscience  of  an  ideal  megalosaurus. 

2.  The  assertion  that  life  is  a  mode  of  motion  rests 
on  repeated  reiteration.  Of  evidence  there  is  none. 
We  are  not  bound  to  accept  unsupported  hypotheses. 
If  evidence  existed  it  would  no  doubt  have  been 
presented. 

3.  Matter  may  be  subjected  to  any  and  every  known 
mode  of  motion,  that  is,  to  any  and  every  physical  force, 


298  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

and  still  be  destitute  of  life.  There  is  electricity,  magnet- 
ism, heat,  light,  and  even  motion  (the  movement  of  still 
living  bioplasts)  in  the  corpse.  The  not-living  may  be 
subjected  to  the  influence  of  electricity,  of  magnetism,  of 
light,  of  heat;  still,  it  cannot  be  made  to  leap  into  the 
kingdom  of  life.  If  life  is  a  mode  of  motion,  either  one 
of  the  ordinary  modes  of  motion,  or  a  mode  of  motion 
allied  to  the  ordinary  physical  forces  and  interconvertible 
with  them,  it  ought  to  be  possible  to  revitalize  the 
corpse.     Let  it  be  done,  and  argument  ends. 

4.  Since,  as  we  have  been  told  for  twenty  years, 
motion  is  indestructible  and  convertible,  science  ought 
to  be  able  to  tell  us  what  becomes  of  this  particular  mode 
of  motion  when  the  organism  dies.  Into  what  is  it  con- 
verted ?  It  must  be  converted  into  some  other  mode,  for 
each  is  indestructible,  only  disappearing  in  one  form  to 
appear  in  another.  Into  what  is  it  transmuted  ?  Those 
who  are  able  to  trace  a  physical  force — every  mode 
of  motion — through  the  transmigrations  it  is  capable  of 
undergoing,  and  to  present  its  equivalent  in  each  of  the 
new  modes  which  it  can  assume,  ought  to  be  able  to  tell 
into  what  this  life-mode  of  motion  is  converted.  What 
is  the  equivalent,  for  instance,  of  self-consciousness  ? 
How  much  light,  heat,  electricity,  magnetism,  or  chemi- 
cal affinity  does  it  represent  ?  What  is  the  mechanical 
equivalent,  in  light,  of  anger  ?  What  is  the  equivalent, 
in  heat,  of  the  concentration  requisite  to  solve  an  intri- 
cate mathematical  problem  ?  What  is  the  equivalent, 
in  electricity,  of  intense  affection  for  an  absent  daughter  ? 
Would  it  be  equal  to  the  transmission  of  a  telegram 
under  Atlantic's  billows  ?  What  is  the  equivalent,  in 
magnetism,  of  the  resolute  determination  to  be  rich, 
honestly  if  possible,  but  rich  ?  Would  it  be  adequate  to 
the  production  of  such  attractions  and  repulsions  as  to 


LIFE    AND    ITS   RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  299 

render  a  "  mode  of  motion"  the  plaything  of  two  contend- 
ing principles,  right  and  wrong  ? 

If,  however,  as  Dr.  Bence  Jones  asserts,  "  Death  is 
the  stoppage  of  the  conversion  of  latent  force  into 
active  force,"  then,  Does  the  magnet  die  ?  Does  the 
corpse  never  decompose  ? 

5.  All  the  motions  of  the  not-living  universe  have 
failed  in  producing  a  trilobite  from  inorganic  matter. 
Spontaneous  generation  has  become  bankrupt,  not  for  lack 
of  admirers,  but  because  it  has  never  produced  even 
one  moneron.  Life  is  from  pre-existing  life,  not  from 
some  mode  of  motion.  Nor  has  any  chemist  succeeded 
in  originating  life  in  the  laboratory,  which  apparently 
he  ought  to  have  done,  if  life  is  a  mode  of  motion. 

THE   BIOPLAST. 

Prof.  Huxley,  who  congratulates  himself  on  having  at 
last  discovered  "  the  physical  basis  of  life" — though 
"  bathybius,"  which  he  once  regarded  as  the  parent  of  all 
living  organisms,  has  turned  out  to  be  nothing  but 
sulphate  of  lime, — resolutely  persists  in  viewing  life  as  a 
mere  machine,  of  which  the  protoplast  is  the  engineer. 
He  asserts: — 

"  A  mass  of  living  protoplasm  is  simply  a  molecular  machine  of  great  com- 
plexity, the  total  results  of  the  working  of  which,  or  its  vital  phenomena,  depend, 
on  the  one  hand,  upon  its  construction,  and,  on  the  other,  upon  the  energy 
supplied  to  it;  and  to  speak  of  vitality  as  anything  but  the  name  of  a  series  of 
operations  is  as  if  one  should  talk  of  the  '  horologity '  of  a  clock." — Encyc. 
Brit.,  art.  "Biology,"  p.  589. 

"A  machine  of  great  complexity"  life  manifestly  is, 
since  it  is  capable  of  turning  out  strange  products,  of 
effecting  singular  metamorphoses.  One  kind  of  ma- 
chine, which  we  denominate  human,  converts  beef  into 
metaphysics,  bread  into  logic,  turkey  into  imagination, 


300  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

oatmeal  into  obstinacy,  sauerkraut  into  love,  potatoes 
into  hope,  mackerel  into  piety,  dove  into  hatred,  and 
plum-pudding  into  cheerfulness. 

Of  this  machine,  "its  vital  phenomena  depend,  on  the 
one  hand,  upon  its  construction,  and  on  the  other,  upon 
the  energy  supplied  to  it."  Its  construction,  be  it 
remembered,  is  the  combined  result  of  "  the  fortuitous 
concourse  of  atoms  during  the  cooling  of  a  planet,"  and 
the  working  of  purely  physical  forces.  These  causes, 
acting  either  singly  or  in  conjunction,  might  have  pro- 
duced a  "machine"  whose  vital  phenomena  would  have 
been  different.  In  that  case,  the  human  machine  might 
have  believed  that  a  cause  is  not  equal  to  the  effect  it 
produces;  that  material  causes  can  produce  spiritual 
effects;  that  there  is  no  basic  distinction  between  the  liv- 
ing and  the  not-living;  that  an  intelligent  effect  does  not 
imply  the  existence  of  an  intelligent  cause;  that  it  is  as 
unreasonable  to  regard  thought  as  anything  else  than  the 
activity  of  invisible  and  fortuitously  aggregated  mole- 
cules, as  it  is  to  conceive  of  the  ponderability  of  platinum 
as  a  substantive  entity;  that  the  freedom  of  the  will  is  an 
inconceivable,  though  pleasing,  delusion. 

11  The  energy  supplied"  to  this  "  machine  of  great 
complexity"  must  come  from  without,  for  otherwise  the 
author  would  have  contented  himself  with  affirming, 
"  Its  vital  phenomena  depend  upon  its  construction." 
If  the  energy  supplied  was  from  without,  then  this 
molecular  machine  must  have  indicated  at  stated  inter- 
vals its  need  of  new  energy,  the  kind  it  coveted,  and  the 
amount  demanded,  attracting  it  as  exigency  required:  or, 
physical  forces,  external  to  the  machine,  must  have  been 
able  to  see  when  energy  was  needed  and  what  kind  was 
necessary;  and,  having  made  choice  between  rival  can- 
didates, must  have  been  equal  to  the  task  of  enforcing 


LIFE    AND    ITS    RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  301 

obedience  to  the  conclusions  reached.  Intelligence  must 
have  been  resident  somewhere,  either  in  the  machine  it- 
self, or  in  the  forces  which  furnished  energy.  To  reason 
respecting  the  intelligence  and  the  will  of  "a  mass  of 
living  protoplasm "  seems  like  reasoning  in  reference 
to  the  conscience  of  an  insect;  and  to  talk  about  the 
intelligent  purpose  manifested  by  modes  of  motion 
appears  like  talking  about  the  "  horologity  "  of  a  clock, 
or  rather,  about  the  "  horologity  "  of  clock-force. 

Moreover,  the  employment  of  the  term  vitality,  as 
though  it  were  synonymous  with  life,  tends  to  produce 
confused  ideas.  Does  the  author  mean  to  intimate  that 
the  vitality  of  each  protoplast,  in  this  "molecular  ma- 
chine of  great  complexity,"  is  the  same  as  the  life  of  the 
organism  which  it  aids  in  constructing  ?  Is  the  life  of 
each  organized  being  nothing  more  than  the  aggregated 
life  of  the  millions  of  protoplasts  which  weave  the  body  ? 
If  so,  where  is  the  agency  which  directs  the  movements 
of  these  protoplasts,  or  bioplasts  ?  *  How  does  it  happen 
that  the  different  parts  of  organic  structures  are  so  nicely 
adjusted,  and  so  correlated  each  to  the  other  ?  Every 
organ  is  adapted  to  the  parts  adjacent,  to  the  symmetry 
of  the  entire  body,  and  to  the  functions  it  is  designed  to 
perform.  A  mere  "  mass  of  protoplasm  "  is  not  a  person- 
ality. To  render  a  bioplasmic  mass  a  personality  there 
evidently  must  be  some  superintending  agent.  What 
is  this  agent  ?  Beale  denominates  it  life.  Those  who 
call  it  molecular  machinery  seem  to  us  as  if  they 
were  talking  about  the  length,  breadth,  thickness, 
and  color  of  love;  or  the  inertia,  figure,  and  porosity 
of  an  abstract  conception;  or  the  size,  mobility, 
attraction,  and  compressibility  of  a  mathematical  point. 

*  Bioplast  and  protoplast  are  regarded  as  equivalent  in  meaning,  though 
bioplast  is  considered  the  preferable  term,  having  been  more  accurately  defined. 


302  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

In  entering-  upon  a  refutation  of  this  form  of  the 
mechanical  theory  a  few  concessions  may  be  made: — 

I.  It  is  conceded  that  the  bioplast, — a  transparent, 
gelatinous  substance,  apparently  structureless,  seemingly 
the  same  in  every  plant  and  every  animal,  originating  in 
a  pre-existing  bioplast,  dispersed  through  all  tissues,  con- 
stituting a  large  part  of  every  living  organism,  throbbing 
continuously,  thrusting  out  one  portion  of  itself  beyond 
another,  etc. — is  capable  of  absorbing  nutrient  matter, 
which  by  some  inexplicable  process  is  instantaneously 
converted  into  living  matter,  forming  a  cell-wall  and  de- 
veloping a  nucleus,  and  within  this  a  nucleolus;  that  of 
the  nutrient  matter,  transmuted  first  into  living  matter 
and  then  into  formed  matter,  it  constructs  nerves,  arteries, 
veins,  tendons,  brain,  bone,  etc.;  that  it  is  capable  of  re- 
production by  self-division,  the  division  being  sometimes 
through  the  nucleus,  and  sometimes  not;  that  without  a 
cell-wall  and  even  without  a  nucleus,  it  can  live,  move, 
and  transform  pabulum  into  living  matter;  that  it  is  a 
morphological  unit,  that  is,  it  is  an  ideal  unit  of  the  parts 
of  the  structure  of  plants  and  animals,  not  an  elementary 
unit  of  the  "  vital  force"  in  these  organisms. 

"  For  the  whole  living  world  then  it  results:  that  the  morphological  unit— 
the  primary  and  fundamental  form  of  life— is  merely  an  individual  mass  of  pro- 
toplasm,  in  which  no  further  structure  is  discernible;  that  independent  living 
forms  may  present  but  little  advance  on  this  structure;  and  that  all  the  higher 
forms  of  life  are  aggregates  of  such  morphological  units  or  cells,  variously 
modified." — Prof.  Huxley,  Encyc.  Brit.,  "  Biology,"  p.  590. 

Divest  this  statement  of  the  assumption  that  organ- 
isms higher  than  the  bioplast  are  nothing  more  than 
aggregates  of  bioplasts,  no  "  vital  force  "  external  to  them 
being  necessary  to  direct  their  working,  and  no  objections 
to  accepting  the  statement  suggest  themselves. 

2.  All   is  conceded  that  Dr.  Lionel  S.  Beale  (whose 


LIFE    AND    ITS    RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  303 

knowledge  of  the  bioplast  exceeds  that  of  Prof.  Huxley,  of 
Prof.  Bain,  of  Prof.  Tyndall — indeed,  of  the  entire  host  of 
materialists)  says,  in  Protoplasm;  or  Matter  and  Life,  a 
volume  well  worthy  of  careful  study.     He  affirms: — 

"Nothing  that  lives  is  alive  in  every  part "  (p.  181).  " It  was  shown  that 
upon  it  [living  matter]  all  growth,  multiplication,  conversion,  formation,  and, 
in  short,  life,  depended"  (p.    184). 

"  The  ultimate  particles  of  matter  pass  from  the  lifeless  into  the  living 
state,  and  from  the  latter  into  the  dead  state  suddenly"  (p.  185). 

"  Of  the  matter  which  constitutes  the  bodies  of  man  and  animals  in  the  fully 
formed  condition,  probably  more  than  four-fifths  is  in  the  formed  and  non- 
living state"  (p.   187). 

"No  language  could  convey  a  correct  idea  of  the  changes  which  may  be 
seen  to  take  place  in  the  form  of  one  of  these  minute  particles  of  bioplasm,  when 
alive"  (p.  207). 

"  Though  nuclei  and  nucleoli  are  living  matter,  they  do  not  undergo  con- 
version into  formed  matter  except  as  regards  the  very  thin  envelope"  (p.  212). 
"  The  living  matter,  with  the  formed  matter  upon  its  surface,   ...  is  the 
anatomical  unit,  the  elementary  part,  or  cell"  (p.  217). 

"  Each  mass  of  bioplasm  increases  in  size  by  the  absorption  of  nutrient  mat- 
ter" (p.  221). 

14  What  is  essential  to  the  cell  is  matter  that  is  in  a  living  state — bioplasm,  and 
matter  that  has  been  in  a  living  state — formed  material.  With  these  is  associ- 
ated a  certain  proportion  of  matter  in  solution,  and  therefore  not  visible,  but 
which  is  about  to  become  living — the  pabulum  or  food"  (p.   225). 

"  The  new  centers  (nuclei)  may  divide  and  subdivide,  as  well  as  originate 
anew  in  already  existing  bioplasm;  but  bioplasm  destitute  of  nuclei  and  nu. 
cleoli  may  divide;  so  that  these  bodies  are  not  essential  to  the  process"  (p.  233). 
"  If  we  could  only  make  fluid  flow  through  the  cell,  after  its  death,  uninter- 
ruptedly in  the  same  direction  and  with  the  same  force  as  it  is  made  to  flow  dur- 
ing life  by  the  action  of  the  living  matter,  ciliary  movement,  I  think,  would  con- 
tinue although  the  living  matter  of  the  cell  was  actually  dead"  (p.  238). 

"  At  every  period  of  life  in  every  part  of  the  body,  separated  from  one  an- 
other by  a  distance  little  more  than  one  one-thousandth  of  an  inch,  are  little 
masses  of  living  matter  which  are  continually  absorbing  nutrient  materials, 
and  undergoing  conversion  into  structures"  (p.  304). 

Dr.  Beale,  who  is  competent  authority  in  reference 
to  the  marvelous  power  of  the  bioplast,  is  a  determined 
opponent  of  materialism  and  of  the  mechanical  theory 
of  life. 


304  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

3.  There  is  mechanism  in  every  living  organism,  from 
the  trilobite  to  the  elephant,  from  the  lichen  on  the  ice- 
fields of  the  Artie  zone,  or  the  algae  in  springs  whose 
temperature  is  2000  F.,  to  the  philosopher  in  the  process 
of  constructing  a  new  theory  of  light,  or  to  the  theologian 
bowing  at  the  footstool  of  The  Unfathomable. 

It  is  denied  that  the  following  statements  have  been 
established  by  satisfactory  proof: — 

1.  Matter  may  possess  spiritual  properties. 

2.  Life  is  mere  mechanism:  "living  things  are  ma- 
chines in  motion." 

No  one  has  proved  that  the  several  tissues  of  living 
organisms  become,  or  can  become,  mutually  adapted  to 
each  other  by  the  operation  of  purely  physical  forces. 
The  ultimate  arrangement  in  adult  animals  must  have 
been  foreseen.  Preparation  for  the  attainment  of  a  de- 
finite purpose  must  have  been  made  before  tissue  of  any 
kind  was  produced.  The  materialistic  hypothesis  fails  in 
explaining  how  each  part  became  adjusted  to  every  other. 
Though  some  of  the  phenomena  of  life  can  be  explained 
by  mechanism  and  some  by  chemistry,  the  ultimate  re- 
sults require  the  hypothesis  of  "  vital  force,"  distinct  from 
and  superior  to  mere  physical  forces.  More  is  included 
in  the  term  life  than  is  contained  in  the  aggregate  of 
elemental  units.  The  formation  and  growth  of  tissue — 
the  building  up  and  breaking  down,  addition  of  matter 
thereto  and  removal  of  matter  therefrom — cannot  be 
fully  explained  by  mechanics  and  chemistry.  The  move- 
ments in  and  by  organized  beings  are  unlike  anything 
that  is  known  to  occur  in  inorgana.  Growth  by  the  as- 
similation of  food  taken  within  is  diverse  from  growth  by 
accretion.  Attraction  does  not,  and  cannot,  account 
for  the  passage  of  pabulum  towards  and  into  living  mat- 
ter; and  no  known  physical  force  is  competent  to  trans- 


LIFE    AND    ITS    RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  305 

mute  it  into  living  tissue,  the  elements  being  not  only 
re-arranged,  but  so  far  altered  that  compounds  which  may 
be  detected  in  the  nutriment  are  not  present  in  its  pro- 
duct. The  physical  and  chemical  changes  of  which  we 
have  knowledge  are  dissimilar  to  the  changes  which  are 
designated  by  the  term  life.  In  not  one  instance  have 
the  phenomena  of  a  living  organism  been  explained  by 
physical  forces.  Those  who  believe  in  "  molecular  modi- 
fications "  have  not  explained  what  they  mean  by  the 
expression;  nor  have  they  shown  what  agencies  produce 
these  "  molecular  changes."  It  has  not  been  proved  that 
life  is  in  dependence  upon  mechanics;  nor  has  it  been 
proved  that  no  forces  are  operative  in  the  formation  of 
bodily  structures  except  material,  nor  even  that  these 
act  exclusively  through  the  bioplast.  The  elemental 
units  of  man's  body  are  arranged,  directed,  and  con- 
trolled, as  material  forces  nowhere  else  direct  and  control 
matter.  The  material  of  the  human  organism  comes  and 
goes:  the  power  remains  substantially  unchanged.  Vital 
force  suspends  the  action  of  chemical  affinity;  it  defies 
the  force  of  gravitation,  carrying  sap  to  the  top  of 
the  tallest  cedar.  It  controls  electrical  currents.  Are 
such  results  possible  to  mere  aggregations  of  infinitesimal 
bioplasts,  no  one  of  which  has  any  discoverable  organism, 
or  any  machinery  whatsoever  ? 

3.  It  is  denied  that,  "  If  an  entirely  organless  mass  of 
matter  may  have  life,  either  actual  or  potential,  then  life 
must  be  molecular  arrangement  effected  by  ordinary 
forces."  If  the  bioplast  is  structureless — which  has  not 
been  proved  and  is  apparently  inconceivable — it  is  seem- 
ingly necessary  to  assume  the  existence  of  a  vital  force, 
if  the  phenomena  are  to  be  explained.  If  it  is  to  be 
conceded  that  the  organless  condition  of  the  bioplast 
is  proved,  then,  as  is  apparent,  the  difficulties  are  aug- 


306  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

mented,  instead  of  being  diminished.  Can  an  organless 
mass  build  up  a  complicated  organism  ?  In  degrading 
the  bioplast  to  such  an  extent  as  to  characterize  it  as  a 
structureless  mass,  its  friends  have  tempted  us  to  pro- 
nounce it  unequal  to  the  tasks  imposed  upon  it.  Admit- 
ting, however,  that  a  "  totally  organless  mass  may  have 
life,"  does  it  follow  that  life  is  "  molecular  arrangement 
effected  by  ordinary  forces  "  ?  May  it  not  be  an  inde- 
pendent "  force  "  ?  Moreover,  it  seems  like  labor  lost  to 
take  pains  in  attempting  to  prove  that  infinitesimal  masses 
of  bioplasm  are  the  elementary  units  of  life,  and  then,  after 
striving  to  induce  the  acceptance  of  this  as  an  ultimate 
fact,  proceed  to  assert  that  life  is  a  particular  arrangement 
of  atoms  effected  by  "ordinary  forces."  Has  it  been 
proved  that  these  are  capable  of  so  arranging  molecules 
as  to  impart  bioplasmic  life  ?  The  difference  between  a 
dead  and  a  living  organism,  is  it  merely  the  way  in  which 
the  particles  stand  related  inter  se  ?  Is  life  originated 
by  placing  material  atoms  together  in  a  specific  way  ? 
Again:  it  may  be  asked,  Is  it  susceptible  of  proof  that  at 
the  death  of  an  organism  some  extraordinary  force  has 
prevented  these  "  ordinary  forces"  from  acting  any  longer 
as  they  have  acted  since  the  birth  of  the  organized  being  ? 
If  these  ordinary  forces  act  in  a  certain  way  for  a  pro- 
tracted period,  what  prevents  them  from  continuing  to 
act  in  the  same  way  ?  Seemingly,  if  life  is  not  independent, 
there  must  be  some  force  whose  nature  is  as  yet  unknown 
beyond  the  simple  fact  that  it  controls  "  ordinary  forces  " 
to  the  extent  of  preventing  them  from  continuing  the 
existence  of  the  living  organism.  So  then,  if  life  is 
not  an  extraordinary  force,  death,  apparently,  must  be 
so  regarded.  Death  is  defined  as  loss  of  correspond- 
ence with  environment;  but  what  causes  the  loss  of 
correspondence  ? 


LIFE    AND    ITS   RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  307 

4.  It  is  denied  that  bioplasts  can  perform  this  mar- 
velous work  without  a  directing  agency.  If  bioplasts 
build  up  all  living  organisms,  there  must  be  in  every  or- 
ganism a  power  which  directs  their  working;  or,  over 
and  above  the  kingdom  of  life,  there  must  be  an  intelli- 
gence which  employs  bioplasts  as  instrumental  agents  in 
constructing  organisms.  If  there  is  a  directing  agency  in 
every  organized  being,  are  there  any  objections  to  de- 
nominating it  life  ?  If  there  is  no  such  directing  agency, 
God  must  be  "working  all  in  all."  An  organization 
without  an  organizer  is  an  impossible  conception.  Life 
is  an  independent  entity,  owing  its  existence  to  the 
same  cause  which  originated  matter;  or  God,  without 
the  intervention  of  a  secondary  agent,  is  the  Life  of  the 
universe.  The  latter,  or  pantheistic  conception,  finds  its 
refutation  elsewhere,  leaving  reason  free  to  assert:  If 
bioplasts  build  up  living  organisms,  something  must 
direct  their  working. 

A  few  concessions  have  been  made  by  materialists,  as 
follows: — 

1.  M  The  phenomena  which  living  things  present 
have  no  parallel  in  the  material  world." — Prof.  T.  H. 
Huxley,  Encyc.  Brit.,  "  Biology." 

2.  "  The  increase  of  size  which  constitutes  growth  is 
the  result  of  a  process  of  molecular  inter-susception,  and 
therefore  differs  altogether  from  the  process  of  growth  by 
accretion." — Idem. 

3.  Any  and  every  mechanical  theory  of  life  finds  a  very 
serious  obstacle  in  the  genesis  and  continuance  of  self- 
consciousness.  This  is  conceded  by  Huxley,  Tyndall, 
Spencer,  Haeckel,  Bain,  indeed  by  nearly  all  the  advo- 
cates of  the  molecular  hypothesis,  some  even  acknowledg- 
ing that  it  is  an  obstacle  that  has  not  been  surmounted, 
and  is  seemingly  insurmountable.     Undisputed. 


308  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

4.  The  bioplasts  which  produce  nerve  cannot  be  con- 
strained, either  by  forces  resident  in  the  body  or  by  ex- 
ternal influences,  to  produce  muscle.  Each  set  performs 
the  work  for  which  it  was  designed,  and  no  other. 
Though  they  are  apparently  the  same,  in  plant  and  in 
animal,  in  muscle  and  in  brain,  the  results  of  their 
labors  are  entirely  different.     This  is  conceded  by  all. 

5.  Bioplasts,  though  very  near  each  other,  never 
interfere  with  each  other's  growth,  and  never  coalesce. 
Conceded. 

6.  The  several  sets  of  bioplasts,  each  independent  of 
the  other,  produce,  as  a  joint  result  of  their  labors,  a 
complicated  net-work  of  muscles,  tendons,  nerves,  etc. 
This  result,  not  alone  in  its  individual  parts,  but  in  its 
totality,  evinces  design.     Undisputed. 

7.  "  All  that  is  at  present  known  tends  to  the  con- 
clusion that  no  cell  has  arisen  otherwise  than  by  becom- 
ing separated  from  the  protoplasm  of  a  pre-existing 
cell;  whence  the  aphorism,  omnis  cellula  e  cellular — Prof. 
Huxley,  Encyc.  Brit.,  "  Biology." 

8.  Substances  which  are  appropriated  by  one  form  of 
bioplasts  will  act  as  poison  on  another.  This  is  asserted 
by  Dr.  Beale  and  is  unchallenged  by  his  opponents. 

9.  "  The  chasm  between  the  living  and  the  not- 
living  the  present  state  of  knowledge  cannot  bridge." 
— Prof.  Huxley,  Encyc.  Brit.,  "  Biology." 

Is  it  not  possible  from  these  concessions  alone  to  con- 
struct an  argument  sufficiently  powerful  to  overthrow  the 
mechanical  theory  ?  If  "  the  phenomena  which  living 
things  present  have  no  parallel  in  the  mineral  world,"  is 
it  legitimate  to  assert  that  life  is  molecular  arrangement  ? 
The  assertion,  unsupported  by  proof,  is  a  pure  assump- 
tion. To  assert  that  because  matter  under  different 
forms  may  have  different  properties,  therefore,  when  its 


LIFE    AND    ITS   RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  309 

molecules  are  arranged  in  a  particular  way  by  "  ordinary 
forces,"  life  is  one  of  its  properties,  seems  like  a  petitio 
principii.  That  inertia  is  one  of  the  properties  of  aggre- 
gated matter,  science  has  proved,  as  is  generally  believed. 
That  mobility  is  a  property  of  air  can  be  established. 
That  expansibility  is  a  property  of  gas  is  susceptible 
of  proof.  Has  it  been  proved  that  life  is  a  property  of 
matter,  provided  its  atoms  are  arranged  in  certain 
ways  ?  It  has  been  assumed  to  be,  merely  because 
matter  assumes  new  properties  when  new  combinations 
are  effected. 

Moreover,  if  we  are  to  accept  this  theory  we  are  un- 
der the  necessity  of  regarding  bioplasm,  Dr.  Lionel  S. 
Beale  assures  us,  as  "  hard  and  soft,  solid  and  liquid, 
colored  and  colorless,  opaque  and  transparent,  granular 
and  destitute  of  granules,  structureless  and  having 
structure,  moving  and  incapable  of  movement,  active  and 
passive,  contractile  and  non-contractile,  growing  and 
incapable  of  growth,  changing  and  incapable  of  change, 
animate  and  inanimate,  alive  and  dead." 

This  theory,  under  whichever  aspect  we  view  it,  the 
purely  materialistic  or  the  semi-teleological,  fails  in  ex- 
plaining the  sense  of  personal  identity.  If  man  is  simply 
a  mechanism — molecules  of  matter  braided  together  in 
certain  ways,  which  molecules  are  incessantly  chang- 
ing, new  ones  taking  the  place  of  those  removed  from 
the  system — how  does  it  happen  that  he  retains  the 
sense  of  personal  identity  down  to  old  age  ?  He  be- 
lieves himself  the  same  person  who  at  the  age  of  five 
years  received  the  dying  counsel  of  an  endeared  father. 
The  body,  however,  has  passed  through  several  entire 
changes:  modern  science  says  it  has  been  renewed  every 
year.  How  could  these  evanishing  atoms,  whatever  their 
molecular  arrangement  may  have  been,  communicate  to 


310  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

their  successors  the  facts  entrusted  to  memory  ?  Can 
they  convey  down  to  old  age,  the  loves  and  the  hatreds, 
the  moral  principles  and  the  settled  judgments,  the 
fears  and  the  hopes,  of  an  antecedent  life  ?  Strange  ! 
If,  as  some  assert,  these  treasures  are  the  possession  of  an 
underlying  reality,  which  has  two  sets  of  properties,  the 
material  and  the  spiritual,  then  what  is  the  agency  by 
which  this  "  single  undivided  reality"  becomes  possessed 
in  man  of  properties  so  diverse  from  those  it  possesses 
as  it  underlies  platinum  ?  Has  platinum  sensation  and 
consciousness  and  memory  ?  Does  the  mentality  of  the 
crystal  differ  only  in  degree  from  that  in  man  ?  Reason 
is  disposed  to  answer:  Upon  the  theory  in  question  no 
explanation  of  the  phenomena  of  conscious  existence  is 
possible. 

If,  as  is  confidently  affirmed,  bioplasts  are  precisely 
the  same  in  every  living  organism,  then — since  some 
weave  tendon;  some,  muscle;  some,  nerve;  some,  brain; 
some,  mule;  some,  cabbage;  some,  oyster;  some,  rose — 
there  must  be  some  power  back  of  them  which  causes 
them  to  produce  such  diverse  results.  If  these  material- 
istic philosophers  are  mistaken  in  affirming  that  all  bio- 
plasts are  alike,  then  what  makes  them  to  differ  ?  Has 
each  species  of  bioplast  a  molecular  arrangement  peculiar 
to  itself?  Science,  it  would  seem,  has  not  yet  struck  its 
hammer  upon  the  foundation  stone  of  life.  If  bioplasts 
do  not  differ,  why  do  the  results  of  their  working  differ  so 
widely  ?  Causes  precisely  alike  ought  to  produce  effects 
precisely  alike.  If  they  differ,  and  the  difference  is  due 
to  different  "molecular  arrangements  effected  by  ordinary 
forces,"  what  is  the  agency  which  causes  these  "ordinary 
forces"  to  present  such  diverse  products?  Who  taught 
these  various  kinds  of  bioplasts  to  work  harmoniously  in 
the  production  of  the  greatest  miracle  ever  performed  in 


LIFE    AND    ITS   DELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  311 

the  universe,  the  construction  of  a  human  body  ?  Who 
gave  them  instruction  in  so  correlating  its  parts  that  they 
might  be  all  subject  to  the  will  ?  Who  educated  them  in 
the  art  of  transmuting  nutrient  matter  into  living  matter  ? 
If  the  transformation  is  a  mere  change  in  the  arrangement 
of  the  molecules,  effected  by  physical  forces,  why  may  not 
physical  forces  effect,  in  the  animal  kingdom,  the  requisite 
molecular  arrangements  with  inorganic  matter,  con- 
structing animals  directly  from  mineral  substances,  and 
not  as  is  invariably  the  case  from  pre-existing  bioplasm  ? 
After  explaining  why  animal  bioplasts  are  thus  restricted 
in  their  operations,  while  vegetable  bioplasts,  which  are 
declared  to  be  the  same,  are  capable  of  working  inorganic 
matter  into  living  organisms,  the  materialist  may  pro- 
ceed to  explain  whence  the  animal  bioplast  acquired  the 
skill  of  weaving  a  nerve  through  and  around  a  muscle,  a 
tendon  through  an  opening  left  in  a  bone  for  its  reception. 
What  agency  directs  the  working  of  these  infinitesimal 
units  of  life  ?  Materialism  answers:  It  is  all  mechanism, 
pure  mechanism,  without  any  superintending  agency 
which  directs  the  myriad  movements  of  the  complicated 
machine.     Reason  asserts:  No. 

It  is  irrational  to  assume  that  several  sets  of  bioplasts, 
acting  independent  of  each  other  and  without  any  su- 
perintendent, may  produce  a  joint  result  which  evinces 
design.  How  do  they  happen  to  construct  a  socket  and  a 
ball  to  constitute  a  joint  ?  How  are  they  induced  to  con- 
struct an  eye  fitted  to  receive  light,  and  a  nerve  adapted 
to  communicate  the  sensation  of  light  to  the  brain  ?  How 
came  they  to  fashion  an  ear  adapted  to  the  reception  of 
sound  ?  Is  it  possible  that  the  labors  of  ten  thousand 
slaves,  who  worked  upon  the  great  Pyramid  of  Gizeh, 
were  not  directed  by  any  superintendent  ?  If  there 
had    been    as    many   independent    wills    as    there    were 


312  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

workmen,  or  rather  if  there  had  been  no  wills  what- 
ever, would  there  have  been  unity  of  design  in  the 
result  ?  The  illustration,  however,  does  injustice  to  the 
teleological  theory  of  life,  for  the  bioplasts  that  work  in 
the  human  body  are  numbered  by  millions,  not  merely 
by  thousands;  nor  are  they  capable  of  holding  con- 
sultations and  determining  upon  a  plan  which  shall  have 
its  parts  so  related  as  to  manifest  a  settled  purpose 
looking  to  remote  results,  as  Egyptian  pyramid-builders 
might  have  done;  nor  is  the  life  of  bioplasts  extended 
to  nearly  half  a  century,  thereby  enabling  them  to  real- 
ize the  completion  of  their  plans,  as  is  true  in  the  case 
of  the  human  beings  whose  bodies  they  build.  What, 
then,  is  the  power  which  moves,  directs,  and  controls 
bioplasts  ?  Materialists  answer,  Physical  force.  Reason 
answers,  Life.  Beale,  and  Carpenter,  and  Frey,  and  a 
host  of  other  specialists  answer,  Yes,  life. 

Dr.  Lionel  S.  Beale  says: — 4<  In  the  first  place,  no  one 
has  been  able  to  explain,  by  known  laws,  the  facts  of  de- 
velopment; and  secondly,  no  one  is  able  to  premise  from 
the  most  careful  and  minute  examination  of  living  mat- 
ter that  can  be  instituted,  what  form  will  result  from  its 
development,  or  what  kind  of  organism  has  given  origin 
to  it;  and  lastly,  the  occurrence  of  successive  series  of 
structural  changes  which  occur  at  definite  periods  of  de- 
velopment of  a  living  being  as  its  structures  and  organs 
gradually  progress  towards  completeness,  and  which  are 
as  it  were  foreseen  and  prepared  for  at  a  very  early  pe- 
riod, long  before  any  structure  whatever  has  been  evolved, 
cannot  be  accounted  for  unless  some  guiding  power  un- 
known to  physics,  and  not  yet  brought  within  the  grasp 
of  law,  is  assumed  to  exist." 

Again:  "  I  have  ventured  to  speculate  concerning 
vital  power  simply  because  I  find  it  impossible  to  account 


LIFE    AND    ITS    RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  313 

for  the  ordinary  universal  life-phenomena  without  the  aid 
of  an  hypothesis  of  this  kind.  I  ask  by  what  means  the 
matter  of  a  living  being  is  made  to  assume  certain  defi- 
nite relations  in  order  that  a  fixed  purpose  may  be  carried 
out  at  a  distant  period  in  time  ?  It  is  asserted  confi- 
dently that  all  is  due  to  physics,  that  life  is  inorganic 
force;  and  it  has  even  been  affirmed  that  life  is  associated 
with  every  kind  of  matter,  non-living  as  well  as  living, 
that  physical  force  is  life,  and  that  life  is  physical  force. 
But  this  is  pure  assertion,  for  no  form  or  mode  of  force 
under  any  conditions  has  been  known  to  effect  changes 
in  any  way  analogous  with  those  by  which  every  form 
of  matter  that  lives  is  characterized." 

Once  again:  "  If  I  may  be  allowed  to  state,  what  ac- 
cording to  my  idea  would  be  the  inference  deduced  by  an 
unprejudiced  scientific  observer  who  had  studied  the  min- 
ute changes  in  living  matter  and  the  gradual  development 
of  lifeless  form  out  of  the  living  formless,  it  would  be  this: 
That  the  true  cause  of  what  he  observed  could  not  be 
physical,  and  that  the  remarkable  phenomena  he  noticed 
were  not  due  to  ordinary  material  forces."  * 

*  Protoplasm;  or  Matter  and  Life,  Dr.  Lionel  S.  Beale,  1874,  pp.  310, 
357,  359- 


CHAPTER   XVIII. 

LIFE  AND  ITS   RELATIONS   TO   MATTER   {CONTINUED). 

It  may  perhaps  be  said  that  a  complete  refutation  of  the 
mechanical  theory  necessitates  a  consideration  of  the 
views  of  those  who  do  not  regard  life  as  an  attribute  of 
matter,  but  as  an  attribute  of  an  underlying  reality  which 
has  two  sets  of  properties,  the  material  and  the  spiritual. 
Has  the  existence  of  any  such  underlying  single  reality 
been  proved  ?  If  so,  what  is  it  ?  If  not,  why  push  the 
question  into  the  field  of  pure  speculation  ?  Besides,  if 
there  is  any  such  undivided  reality  underlying  all  things, 
whether  it  be  material  or  immaterial — and  it  must  be  one 
or  the  other — it  must  be  a  very  singular  reality  which 
is  capable  of  possessing  two  directly  opposite  sets  of 
qualities,  extension  and  non-extension,  activity  and 
inactivity,  form  and  formlessness — the  distinctive  prop- 
erties of  mind  and  the  distinctive  properties  of  matter 
also. 

This  theory,  in  the  hands  of  Prof.  Alexander  Bain 
and  Prof.  Tyndall,  assumes  the  form  of  an  elaborate 
attempt  to  combine  two  theories  of  life, — the  mechan- 
ical and  the  teleological.  "  The  arguments,"  says  Prof. 
Bain,  "  for  two  substances,  have,  we  believe,  now  en- 
tirely lost  their  validity;  they  are  no  longer  compatible 
with  ascertained  science  and  clear  thinking.  The  one 
substance,  with  two  sets  of  properties,  two  sides,  the 
physical  and  the  mental — a  double-faced   unity — would 


LIFE    AND    ITS   DELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  315 

appear    to    comply    with    all    the    exigencies     of    the 
case."  * 

The  advocates  of  this  view  claim  for  it  the  honor  of 
doing  full  justice  to  both  phases  of  life,  the  material  and 
the  mental.  They  pronounce  it  competent  to  explain 
all  the  phenomena  of  organic  existences,  regarding  them 
as  an  intimately  connected,  and  uninterrupted  series  of 
purposive  effects  resulting  from  the  varied  combinations 
of  the  two  sets  of  qualities  which  inhere  in  the  one  sub- 
stance. Life,  then,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  necessary, 
nor  even  as  an  ordinary,  quality  of  matter,  indeed  not  as 
a  quality  of  matter  at  all,  but  as  the  quality  of  a  sub- 
stratum in  which  inhere  both  the  matter  and  the  life  of  an 
organism.  Life  is  an  affection  which  matter  seems  to  as- 
sume when  its  molecules  are  arranged  according  to  a 
certain  extended  class  of  forms,  that  is,  in  the  vegetable 
and  animal  kingdom;  in  reality,  the  spiritual  side  of  this 
"double-faced  unity  "  is  more  fully  turned  towards  the 
observer — simply  this.  Matter,  whatever  its  primary 
qualities  may  be,  takes  upon  itself  new  qualities  with 
new  arrangements  of  its  molecules.  Life,  whatever  its 
essential  attributes  may  be,  manifests  different  phe- 
nomena according  to  the  combinations  of  spiritual  qual- 
ities displayed  by  this  underlying  reality  in  each  living 
organism.  Life,  so  far  as  science  is  able  to  determine,  is 
never  separate  from  matter.  Matter,  under  every  form, 
has  some  measure  of  life.  The  one  substance  has  two 
sets  of  properties;  here,  the  physical  are  more  conspic- 
uous; there, the  mental  are.  Mental  qualities,  transmis- 
sible in  a  material  germ,  are  so  far  independent  of  ex- 
ternal influences,  and  so  far  permanent  in  each  organism, 
as  to  need  no  internal  directing  agent  to  control  them, 
only  a  certain  environment  being  necessary  to  their  full 

*  Mind  and  Body,  p.  196. 


316  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

development.  Physical  forces,  during  the  life  of  each 
organic  being,  maintain  that  arrangement  of  the  material 
molecules  which  enables  the  underlying  substance  to 
manifest  its  non-material  qualities.  The  bioplast  is  the 
morphological  unit,  every  living  organism  being  merely 
an  aggregate  of  bioplasts.  The  infinitesimal  units  of  life, 
being  capable  of  reproduction,  build  up  animal  structures 
by  converting  nutritive  matter  into  living  matter. 

It  is  safe  to  say  that  this  is  also  a  mechanical  view  of 
life.  Huxley  admits  that  "  It  may  be  combined  with  a 
strictly  mechanical  view  of  evolution."  It  is  difficult  to 
see  how  we  can  regard  it  as  anything  else,  unless  under 
its  guidance  we  pass  into  some  pantheistic  theory  of  the 
universe.  We  do  not  account  for  the  evidences  of  design 
everywhere  apparent  in  nature,  especially  in  the  kingdom 
of  life,  by  assuming  that  there  is  an  underlying  substance, 
which,  when  matter  assumes  the  molecular  arrangement 
peculiar  to  bioplasm,  is  capable  of  manifesting  spiritual 
attributes,  the  spiritual  gleaming,  as  it  were,  through  the 
interstices  of  the  material.  Most  of  those  who  are  famil- 
iar with  the  teachings  of  modern  physics  are  prepared  to 
admit,  with  Prof.  J.  Clerk  Maxwell,  that  matter  may  as- 
sume new  affections  when  new  combinations  are  effected;* 
that  the  magnitude  and  motions  of  the  molecules  which 
combine,  and  the  physical  forces  which  are  operative  in 
effecting  the  combination,  determine  in  measure  the 
properties  which  they  shall  manifest  under  their  new 
forms;  but,  though  the  present  tendency  is  manifestly 
towards  the  acceptance  of  the  theory  that  matter  is 
merely  phenomenal,  it  has  not  been  proved  that  matter 
and  spirit  are  but  two  phases  of  one  undivided  substance, 

*  "  In  modern  times  the  study  of  nature  has  brought  to  light  many  properties 
of  bodies  which  appear  to  depend  on  the  magnitude  and  motions  of  their 
ultimate  constituents." — J.  Clerk  Maxwell,  Kncyc.  Brit.,  art.  "Atom,"  p.  33. 


LIFE    AND    ITS   RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  317 

in  which  inhere  inertia  and  sensation,  changefulness  and 
the  sense  of  personal  identity,  powerlessness  and  will- 
force,  insensibility  and  self-consciousness. 

If,  as  every  form  of  the  mechanical  theory  assumes, 
molecules  of  matter  braided  together  in  certain  forms 
have  inherent  power  adequate  to  the  construction  of 
every  living  organism,  that  is,  if  the  structureless  infini- 
tesimal bioplast  is  the  artificer  of  all  living  forms;  then, 
everything  is  explained  in  the  kingdom  of  life,  save  this 
marvelous  "morphological  unit."  How  came  this  pos- 
sessed of  such  wonderful  powers  ?  If  it  is  structureless, 
then  life  is  antecedent  to  organization,  and  may  be  its 
cause.  A  living  atom  without  organs  produces  mar- 
velous results.  These  results  cannot  be  attributed  to 
the  atom,  for  that  would  be  to  assign  effects  to  an  in- 
adequate cause.  Nor  are  the  effects  produced  by  the 
organs  of  the  bioplast,  for  organs  it  has  none. 

Dr.  Joseph  Cook  has  defined  life  as  "  the  power  which 
directs  the  movements  of  bioplasts."  Against  this  defi- 
nition objections  may  be  raised.  It  has  not  been  proved 
that  life  is  a  power  which  is  restricted  to  the  production 
of  movements  in  bioplasts.  Is  it  impossible  that  life 
should  produce  any  other  modes  of  motion  except  those 
peculiar  to  bioplasts  ?  Do  all  movements  of  the  body 
originate  in  movements  of  bioplasmic  masses  ?  Besides, 
the  bioplast,  we  suppose,  possesses  life,  and  is  not  a  mere 
machine  driven  by  life.  It  may  be  regarded  as  possess- 
ing vitality  independent  of  its  movements.  Consequently, 
life,  as  represented  in  this  first  link  in  the  chain  of  the 
living  is  not  defined  by  saying,  "Life  is  the  power  which 
directs  the  movements  of  bioplasts." 

If  the  bioplast  is  structureless,  though  possessing 
power  adequate  to  construct  all  organisms;  and  if  it  has 
no  individual   life,  though  capable   of  imparting  life   to 


318  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

nutrient  matter;  then  why  regard  it  as  the  true  morpho- 
logical unit  ?  The  unit  ought,  it  would  seem,  to  possess 
a  structure  of  its  own,  and  a  life  of  its  own.  Not  pos- 
sessing these,  the  task  is  imposed  upon  it  of  producing 
effects  not  contained  in  itself  as  cause.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  bioplast  has  an  individual  life  of  its  own,  whence 
did  this  life  originate  ?  To  say  that  molecules  of  matter 
chanced  to  come  together  in  such  forms  as  to  originate 
life,  does  not  satisfy  reason.  God  is  not  eliminated.  If 
He  is  needed  nowhere  else,  He  is  indeed  as  the  Creator 
of  bioplasm. 

If  it  is  said  that  the  bioplast  has  an  organization, 
though  it  cannot  be  discovered  under  the  most  power- 
ful microscope,  then  how  came  it  to  possess  this  organiz- 
ation ?  How  did  it  happen  to  be  an  organization  en- 
dowed with  skill  adequate  to  the  marvels  attributed  to 
it  ?  A  cause  must  be  equal  to  the  effect  produced  by  it. 
Consequently,  small  as  it  is,  it  must  be  equal  to  the  pro- 
duction of  every  species  of  plants  and  animals,  if,  as  we 
are  told,  they  are  all  constructed  by  it.  Accordingly,  it 
must  be  the  most  powerful  agent  in  the  universe.  But 
it  is  unquestionably  an  effect.  Can  that  which  is  capable 
of  constructing  organisms  originate  without  an  organ- 
izer ?  As  the  effects  which  it  produces  evince  design, 
can  it  possibly  have  come  into  being  without  a  designer  ? 
Purpose  implies  will.  The  more  wonderful  the  results 
the  bioplast  is  capable  of  producing,  and  the  more  com- 
pletely its  working  is  independent  of  superintendence, 
the  greater  the  need  of  assuming  that  it  must  be  the  pro- 
duction of  an  Intelligent  Designer. 

Life  has  been  defined  as  intangible,  incorporeal, 
highly  attenuated  matter;  not  as  ordinary  matter  with 
its  commonly  accepted  properties,  but  as  matter  atten- 
uated   to    the    last    degree,    inponderable,    incapable    of 


LIFE    AND    ITS    RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  319 

being-  subjected  to  investigation  of  any  kind  whatsoever, 
having  still  greater  tenuity  than  odor  from  zinc,  than 
diffused  particles  of  musk,  than  scent  from  the  track  of 
the  fox;  more  attenuated  than  the  hypothetical  ether 
which  is  supposed  to  pervade  interstellar  space;  rivaling 
in  tenuity  light,  heat,  sound,  electricity,  magnetism, 
which  are  regarded  as  corpuscular  emanations  from  the 
grosser  forms  of  matter,  not  as  undulations;  existing  in 
a  state  of  rarefaction  scarcely  conceivable  except  upon 
the  hypothesis  that  matter  is  infinitely  divisible. 

This  attenuated  material  substance  is  regarded  as  pos-. 
sessing  the  properties  commonly  considered  as  belong- 
ing to  spirit.  The  advocates  of  this  theory  deem  it 
unnecessary,  and  indeed  irrational,  to  make  any  essen- 
tial distinction  in  the  fundamental  nature  of  material  and 
spiritual  substances — all  are  material,  though  the  distance 
between  the  two  extremes  is  almost  infinite.  Conse- 
quently, no  practical  harm  can  come,  they  think,  in  con- 
tinuing to  employ  the  two  terms,  matter  and  spirit,  the 
ponderable  and  the  imponderable,  "soma'  and  "pneiima" 
it  being  understood  that  the  former  is  a  visible,  tangible, 
ponderable  body,  and  that  the  latter  is  an  invisible,  im- 
ponderable, intangible,  incorporeal  substance. 

This  theory,  though  occasionally  employed  in  defence 
of  theistic  conceptions  of  the  universe,  is  nevertheless 
only  a  modified  form  of  materialism,  and  shares  its  fate. 

MR.   SPENCER'S   DEFINITION   OF   LIFE. 

The  famous  definition  of  life  given  by  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer  merits  attention,  and  may  as  well  be  considered 
at  this  point.  He  defines  life  as  "  The  definite  combi- 
nation of  heterogeneous  changes,  both  simultaneous  and 
successive,  in  correspondence  with  external  co-existences 
and  sequences." 


320  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

This  has  one  recommendation  at  least, — it  is  a  labored 
attempt  to  employ  terms  sufficiently  broad  to  embrace  all 
life  from  a  lichen  to  an  archangel.  Whilst,  however,  it 
manifestly  includes  "the  life  of  the  crystal"  formed  by 
the  chemist  in  the  laboratory,  it  is  doubtful  whether  it  can 
be  regarded  as  embracing  germ-life  when  in  a  state  of 
suspended  development.  In  the  kernel  of  wheat  which 
retains  life  in  suspense  after  lying  in  an  Egyptian  sarco- 
phagus three  thousand  years  or  more,  has  there  been  a  de- 
finite combination  of  heterogeneous  changes  both  simul- 
taneous and  successive  ?  Is  there  any  special  propriety  in 
a  definition  which  excludes  life  in  this  form,  while  includ- 
ing it  in  a  form  less  analogous  to  the  life  of  human  beings  ? 

"  A  combination  of  heterogeneous  changes  "  !  Why 
exclude  from  the  conception  the  cause  or  causes  which 
produce  these  changes  ?  It  would,  to  appearance  at 
least,  be  more  consonant  with  reason  to  define  life  as  the 
efficient  cause  in  the  production  of  a  series  of  changes. 
What  agency  produces  this  "  combination  of  changes," 
and  how  are  they  related  to  each  other  ?  Is  each  a 
necessary  effect  of  a  pre-existing  change  in  the  organism 
itself?  Again:  is  the  term  life  to  be  conceived  of  as 
including  all  heterogeneous  changes?  If  so,  how  shall 
the  changes  in  the  mineral  kingdom  be  distinguished 
from  those  in  the  animal  ?  Inorganic  matter  undergoes 
changes  from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  from  the 
homogeneous  to  the  heterogeneous.  Are  these  included 
in  the  combination  which  defines  life  ?  Mr.  Spencer  in- 
tended them  to  be.  If  not  all  "  heterogeneous  changes  " 
are  included  in  this  "  definite  combination,"  which  are  ? 
Until  this  is  determined,  no  definition  is  furnished  of 
the  life  characteristic  of  the  organic  world,  the  thing 
to  be  defined.  Unless  this  is  distinguished  from  every- 
thing else,  no  tangible  result  is  reached. 


LIFE    AND    ITS    RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  321 

To  the  term  "  combination  "  the  author  has  prefixed 
the  word  "  definite  "  with  the  view,  apparently,  of  limit- 
ing its  application.  Does  this  restrict  the  combination 
to  changes  occurring  in  the  animal  and  vegetable  king- 
doms ?  No:  for  there  are  definite  combinations  of 
changes  in  the  inorganic  world.  He  adds,  however, 
"  both  simultaneous  and  successive,"  with  the  view  of 
further  limiting  the  terms  employed.  As  such  changes 
occur,  however,  in  the  domain  of  matter,  as  well  as  in  the 
kingdom  of  life,  no  assistance  is  rendered  in  acquiring 
clear  conceptions  of  what  organic  life  is.  He  adds  an- 
other limitation;  this  "definite  combination  of  heteroge- 
neous changes,  both  simultaneous  and  successive,"  must 
be  "in  correspondence  with  external  co-existences  and 
sequences."  The  substratum,  then,  in  which  these 
changes  inhere  must  be  subject  to  influences  from 
environment.  The  simultaneous  and  successive  changes 
which  take  place  in  the  crystal,  under  the  hammer  of 
the  geologist,  are  in  correspondence  with  co-existences — 
the  hammer  and  the  human  arm, — and  in  correspondence 
with  sequences — the  fragments.  Is  the  pulverization 
of  the  crystal  to  be  regarded  as  life  ?  There  was  a  sub- 
stratum in  which  the  changes  inhered.  There  was  a 
combination  of  "  heterogeneous  changes,  both  simul- 
taneous and  successive."  This  combination  was  "  defi- 
nite." It  was  also  "in  correspondence  with  external 
co-existences  and  sequences." 

Is  the  labored  definition  a  philosophical  explanation, 
from  the  stand-point  of  evolution,  of  the  inexplicable 
process  by  which  a  definite  combination  of  infinitesimal 
molecules  of  "star  dust"  become  condensed  into  the 
planet  Jupiter,  in  correspondence  with  co-existing  nebu- 
lous masses  of  "  mind-stuff,"  and  in  complicated  corre- 
lations with  worlds  and  suns  floating  purposelessly  in  the 


322  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

undisturbed  ocean  of  immensity,  and  in  admirable  con- 
gruity  with  infinite  sequences,  both  proximate  and  re- 
mote, not  alone  in  the  planet  formed,  but  as  well  also  in 
everything  that  has,  can,  shall,  or  may  come  under  the 
limitless  sway  of  its  incomprehensible  potentialities  ? 
Does  it  render  it  possible  to  assert  that  the  life  of  this 
measureless  universe,  as  it  gleams  on  the  outer  fringes  of 
immensity,  is  the  same  in  kind  as  that  which  pulsates  in 
a  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  differing  only  in  degree.  May  we 
not  affirm  that  the  hitherto  insolvable  problem,  "  How 
to  define  life,"  has  been  solved  ?  When  the  philosophy 
of  agnosticism  has  found  a  grave  behind  the  western 
hills,  being  laid  to  rest  in  the  mausoleum  where  innumer- 
able systems  of  philosophy  have  found  a  sepulcher,  one 
fact  which  it  knew,  the  content  of  the  term  life,  will  be 
left  as  a  legacy  to  befogged  humanity. 

Some  adherents  of  the  materialistic  school  fail  to  ap- 
preciate Mr.  Spencer's  elaborate  definition.  They  assert 
that  he  should  have  limited  the  changes  of  which  he 
speaks,  to  those  which  occur  in  the  life  of  a  bioplast. 
Consequently,  they  charge  him  with  deficiency  of  know- 
ledge in  reference  to  the  powers  of  bioplasmic  elements; 
and  hence  repudiate  the  definition. 

II.  Definitions  which  regard  life  as  a  substantive 
entity;  a  substance,  but  not  matter;  an  entity,  but  not  a 
material  entity;  a  substantial  and  independent  existence, 
possessing  organizing  power  and  the  capacity  of  repro- 
duction; susceptible  of  being  influenced  by  matter  and 
by  physical  forces,  and  of  influencing  them;  having  power 
in  animals  adequate  to  the  assimilation  of  organic  ma- 
terials, and  in  plants  adequate  to  the  incorporation  of 
inorganic  matter;  having  the  power  of  adapting  itself  to 
environment  within  certain  limits,  and  of  varying  the 
individual  organism  to  a  limited  extent. 


LIFE    AND    ITS   RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  323 

Life  has  been  defined  as  "a  directing-  agent,"  "an 
organizing  principle,"  "the  cause  of  form  in  organisms," 
"a  vital  force." 

These  attempts  to  define  the  term,  and  as  well  all 
others  made  by  teleologists,  proceed  upon  the  apparently 
rational  assumption  that  an  organizer  must  exist  before 
organization  can  begin;  that  the  entity  which  exists  ante- 
cedent to  organization  may  continue  to  exist  after  the  ma- 
ted .  1  organism  which  it  constructed  has  been  resolved  into 
its  original  elements.  This  teleological  theory  denies  that 
man  is  mere  matter,  there  being  no  spiritual  superinten- 
dent. It  affirms  that  the  ordinary  forces  of  nature  could 
not  have  produced  a  body  with  such  intricate,  ingenious, 
and  delicately  woven  tissues.  It  concedes  that  the  sculp- 
tor can  chisel  the  marble  till  his  genius  glows  on  every 
atom  of  its  surface:  it  denies  that  he  can  impart  life  to 
the  statue.  It  acknowledges  that  the  painter  can  blend 
his  colors  till  they  express  hope,  love,  fear,  or  hatred:  it 
affirms  that  he  cannot  give  life  to  the  canvass.  It  ad- 
mits that  the  skilled  workman  can  weave  his  threads  into 
a  delicate  texture;  that  taking  them  apart  one  by  one, 
he  can  weave  them  into  a  new  texture  with  different  de- 
signs: it  denies  that  he  can  give  that  texture  the  power 
of  self-movement,  the  capacity  of  reproduction,  the  power 
of  transmuting  flax  into  wool,  and  of  incorporating  the 
transformed  material  into  its  own  structure.  It  asks,  If 
life  is  simply  matter  and  physical  forces,  then,  why  may 
not  the  enfeebled  body  be  rejuvenated,  and  the  corpse  be 
revitalized  ?  Chemists,  it  would  seem,  ought  to  be  able, 
in  that  case,  to  restore  the  dead  to  life;  indeed,  science, 
ere  this,  should  have  taught  us  how  to  exempt  a  mate- 
rial organism  from  the  ravages  of  approaching  dissolution. 
The  magnet  can  be  magnetized;  after  losing  the  magnetic 
influence  it  can  be  re-magnetized.     But  life  once  gone,  no 


324  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

physicist  can  recall  it.  If  life  is  a  result  of  physical  forces, 
we  ought  to  have  learned  how  to  keep  the  machinery 
running  uninterruptedly.  What  leaves  the  body  when 
death  claims  it  as  her  own  ?  From  the  germ  that  has 
been  capable  of  development,  but  has  become  incapable, 
what  has  departed  ?  The  teleologist  asserts,  Vital  force 
is  gone.  When  what  we  denominate  life  has  departed 
from  an  organism,  leaving  it  nearly  unimpaired,  as  when 
one  dies  from  fright,  why  are  physical  forces  and  matter, 
if  they  alone  constructed  it  in  the  first  place,  incapable 
of  repairing  it,  thereby  setting  the  machinery  to  running 
again  ?  We  answer,  The  vital  force  is  gone.  Can  mate- 
rialists give  a  more  satisfactory  answer  ?  If  a  few  atoms 
of  flax,  after  weaving  themselves  into  a  fabric,  were  ca- 
pable of  taking  wool,  cotton,  paper,  and  straw,  and,  after 
transmuting  them,  incorporate  them  into  their  own  struc- 
ture, thereby  enlarging  and  strengthening  that  structure 
as  well  as  providing  against  the  incessant  wear  and  waste 
to  which  it  was  subjected,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  as- 
signable reason  why  the  process  should  not  be  continued 
indefinitely. 

While  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  term  life — like  the  terms 
time,  space,  matter,  spirit — has  not  been  defined,  the  de- 
finitions given  by  teleologists  being  too  indefinite  to  satisfy 
reason,  it  is  nevertheless  reasonable  to  assert  that  there 
is  such  an  entity  as  "  vital  force,"  distinct  alike  from  matter 
and  from  the  ordinary  forces  of  nature.  Deeming  this, 
susceptible  of  proof,  we  present  a  series  of  arguments  sue-"* 
cinctly  stated. 

i.  Life  has  not  been  produced  in  the  laboratory  of 
the  scientist.  Chemistry  and  mechanics  are  as  yet 
childless.  They  have  not  presented  the  world  with 
a  drop  of  albumen  capable  of  taking  food,  assim- 
ilating   it,    moving,    growing,    and    reproducing    itself. 


LIFE    AND    ITS   RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  325 

This     ought     to    have     been     done,     if    life    is     mere 
mechanism. 

2.  There  is  no  evidence  that  spontaneous  generation — 
what  Huxley  denominates  abiogenesis — is  now  occurring, 
or  ever  has  occurred,  anywhere  in  the  universe.  Mr.  Hux- 
ley says  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britanuica,  in  his  treatise  on 
"  Biology":  "At  the  present  moment  there  is  not  a  shadow 
of  trustworthy  direct  evidence  that  abiogenesis  does 
take  place,  or  has  taken  place,  within  the  period  during 
which  the  existence  of  life  on  the  globe  is  recorded."  If 
life  is  not  a  something  distinct  from  matter  and  from  or- 
dinary forces,  spontaneous  generation  ought  to  be  occur- 
ring continuously. 

3.  No  known  force  has  been  converted  into  vitality; 
nor  has  vitality  been  converted  into  any  one  or  more  of 
the  physical  forces.  Consequently,  vitality  must  be  some- 
thing distinct  from  ordinary  forces. 

4.  Nutritive  matter  passes  instantaneously  from  the 
non-living  to  the  living  state,  and  under  conditions 
where  the  change  is  inexplicable  by  the  ordinary  inor- 
ganic forces.     So  likewise  death  is  instantaneous. 

5.  So  far  as  is  known  to  science,  no  force,  save  that 
denominated  "vital,"  is  competent  to  account  for  the 
passage  of  nutrient  matter  towards  and  into  the  center  of 
living  matter.  Dr.  Lionel  S.  Beale  says  that  chemical 
affinity  cannot  explain  it. 

6.  No  inorganic  force  furnishes  a  satisfactory  explan- 
ation of  the  fact  that  the  moment  nutrient  matter  be- 
comes living,  it  moves  from  the  center  of  the  cell  out- 
wards. Why  is  the  flow  of  the  non-living  centripetal,  and 
the  flow  of  the  living  centrifugal  ?  Why  is  the  movement 
of  the  one  invariably  in  an  opposite  direction  to  that  of 
the  other  ?  Dr.  Beale  affirms  that  no  form  of  attraction 
and  repulsion  accounts  for  the  phenomena.     To  reduce 


32G  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

life  to  "mere  attractions  and  repulsions,"  and  to  "  regard 
physiology  as  a  complex  branch  of  physics,"  Huxley 
severely  denounced  it  in  1853.  He  prefers  to  view  "  vital- 
ity as  a  property  inherent  in  certain  kinds  of  matter."  He 
thinks  the  life-property  of  protoplasm  is  due  to  its  ele- 
ments,— oxygen,  hydrogen,  nitrogen,  carbon,  and  phos- 
phorus. He  says: — "  If  the  nature  and  properties  of 
water  may  be  properly  said  to  result  from  the  nature  and 
disposition  of  its  molecules,  I can  find no  intelligible  ground 
for  refusing  to  say  that  the  properties  of  protoplasm 
result  from  the  nature  and  disposition  of  its  molecules." 
He  has  not  proved,  however,  that  the  properties  of 
different  substances  are  properties  in  the  same  sense, 
nor  that  they  are  properties  of  the  same  order.  What 
is  the  particular  property  of  protoplasm  which  causes 
nutrient  matter  to  move  inwards  towards  its  center,  and 
living  matter  to  move  outwards  towards  its  circumfer- 
ence ?  We  have  the  authority,  not  only  of  Beale,  but 
even  of  Huxley,  for  affirming  that  the  phenomena  are 
not  produced  by  attraction  and  repulsion.  Are  they 
an  effect  of  vital  force  ? 

7.  The  changes  effected  in  substances  by  living  matter 
are  essentially  different  from  those  produced  by  other 
agencies.  Nutrient  matter  is  changed  when  it  is  trans- 
muted into  living  matter. 

8.  Neither  the  formation,  nor  the  growth,  of  the 
simplest  living  thing  can  be  explained  without  the  as- 
sumption of  some  force  independent  of,  and  superior  to, 
chemical  and  mechanical  forces.  If,  according  to  the 
theory  now  popular,  the  living  and  the  not-living  alike 
consist  of  ordinary  matter  and  ordinary  force,  being  the 
same  in  kind  and  differing  only  in  degree;  and  if,  as  we 
are  told,  there  is  in  living  things  no  vital  principle  sep- 
arable from  the  matter  with  which  it  is  associated,  and 


LIFE    AND    ITS   RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  327 

from  which,  as  well  as  from  ordinary  force,  it  is  essentially 
different, — then  why  are  scientists  unable,  with  the  assis- 
tance of  matter  and  mere  physical  force,  to  explain  the 
formation  and  growth  of  any  living  organism  ?  Why  is 
every  explanation  that  is  given  incessantly  assuming  the 
existence  of  a  force  diverse  from  any  force  known  to 
exist  in  the  inorganic  world  ? 

9.  There  is  a  wide  difference  between  inanimate  mole- 
cules and  animate  molecules;  and  yet  both  are  subject 
to  the  ordinary  forces  of  nature.  The  lifeless  and  the 
living  are  governed  by  laws  essentially  different.  There 
must  be  a  vital  force,  whose  laws  and  modes  of  operation 
are  diverse  from  those  of  any  other  force. 

10.  A  mass  of  protoplasm  moves  and  converts  pabu- 
lum into  living  matter  without  any  waste  of  either  ma- 
terial or  force.  This,  chemistry  and  mechanics  cannot 
do.  Let  materialists  produce,  without  leaving  any  chips 
in  their  workshop,  a  little  speck  of  jelly  throbbing  with 
life,  and  it  will  be  easier  to  believe  that  there  is  no 
"  vital  force  "  distinguishable  from  ordinary  force. 

11.  The  brain  is  not  competent  to  secrete  mind  as  the 
liver  secretes  bile.  The  relation  of  mind  to  brain  is 
different  from  the  relation  of  bile  to  the  liver.  No  true 
analogy  exists.     Mind  is  not  tangible. 

12.  Vital  power  is  necessary  to  account  for  the  differ- 
ence between  brain-cells,  liver-cells,  and  nerve-cells.  It 
is  inconceivable  that  these — indistinguishable  under  the 
microscope — should  produce  such  diverse  results,  if  sub- 
ject to  no  influence  except  that  of  physical  force.  Why 
is  it  impossible  for  the  one  set  of  cells  to  perform  the 
functions  belonging  to  either  of  the  others  ? 

13.  There  is  life  in  the  germ  before  there  is  any  ma- 
chinery in  it.  Why,  then,  should  we  affirm  that  living 
things  are  mere  machines  ?     If  the  "  vital  machine  "  dif- 


328  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

fers  radically  from  every  other  kind  of  machine,  the  term 
"  machine"  should  not  be  employed.  To  employ  it  with- 
out an  accurate  statement  of  the  respects  in  which  it 
differs  from  the  term  as  used  to  define  life,  is  as  unfair 
as  it  is  unphilosophical.  It  assumes  the  very  thing  which 
is  to  be  proved. 

14.  Inorganic  matter,  which  is  itself  subject  to  the 
ordinary  forces  of  nature,  does  not  grow  from  within  by 
taking  matter  unlike  itself  and  communicating  to  it  its 
own  properties.  Why,  then,  may  we  not  apply  the  term 
"vital  force"  to  that  which  is  characteristic  of  life  and  is 
different  from  all  ordinary  forces  ? 

15.  Living  matter  moves  and  forms,  self-impelled; 
non-living  matter  can  do  neither.  Why  regard  two  things 
which  are  diverse,  as  differing  in  degree,  not  in  kind  ? 

16.  All  animals,  and  pre-eminently  human  beings,  have 
sensation  and  volition.    Inorganic  substances  have  neither. 

17.  All  organisms  have  personal  identity,  though  the 
molecules  composing  them  are  in  constant  flux.  In  what 
does  the  identity  inhere,  if  there  is  no  vital  force  ? 

18.  Man,  at  will,  can  employ  language  expressive  of 
inward  feelings,  thoughts,  fears,  and  hopes.  Matter  can- 
not.    Machinery  does  not  start  and  stop  at  pleasure. 

19.  Man  has  self-consciousness.  To  apply  the  term 
machine,  and  without  limiting  its  meaning,  to  a  being 
possessing  a  consciousness  of  its  own  existence  appears 
preposterous. 

20.  Embryos  are,  to  appearance,  the  same.  If  there  is 
no  individual  "  vital  force,"  what  makes  them  to  differ  ? 
Why  does  not  the  potato  develop  into  an  elephant;  the 
dog-embryo  into  a  Socrates;  the  midge-embryo  into  a 
monkey  ? 

21.  The  matter  of  man  is  no  more  complex  than 
that  of  other  animals.     He  is  subject  to  the  same  forces 


LIFE    AND    ITS    RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  329 

of  nature  that  other  animals  are.  There  is  no  force 
operating  from  inorganic  nature  upon  him  which  does  not 
operate  on  every  living  thing.  Why,  then,  if  he  has  no 
individual  vital  force,  does  he  differ  from  other  animals, 
being  more  intelligent,  possessing  moral  convictions,  and 
having  religious  impulses  ? 

22.  If  there  is  no  ''vital  force,"  what  causes  the 
various  parts  of  every  organism  to  be  correlated  ?  Is 
the  question  answered  by  assuming,  as  Professor  Hux- 
ley does,  that  "  a  particle  of  jelly"  is  capable  of  guid- 
ing physical  forces  in  such  a  manner  as  to  give  rise 
to  exquisitely  arranged  structures?  How  came  a  "  par- 
ticle of  jelly  "  in  the  brain  so  related  to  a  "particle  of 
jelly"  in  the  toe  as  to  report  the  prick  of  a  needle 
and  induce  the  promulgation  of  a  decree  for  its  re- 
moval, putting  the  organism  into  motion  for  the  attain- 
ment of  this  result  ?  Nor  could  chance  have  proved 
more  successful  than  structureless  bioplasts  in  adjusting 
all  the  parts  of  the  body  one  to  another. 

23.  Life  is  more  than  an  aggregate  of  elemental  units. 
St.  Peter's,  at  Rome,  is  not  a  mere  aggregation  of  grains 
of  sand.  As  no  one  has  been  able  to  discover  structure 
of  any  kind  whatsoever  in  these  elemental  units,  why  re- 
gard a  living  organism  as  an  aggregate  of  these  ?'  To 
say  that  what  is  designated  as  man's  life  is  the  aggregated 
life  of  the  bioplasts  which  are  at  work  in  his  body,  is  as 
if  I  should  say  that  the  laborers  who  worked  upon  the 
Brooklyn  bridge  were  the  architects  of  the  structure. 

24.  Bioplasts  may  be  living  in  man's  body  after  it 
has  become  a  corpse.  Then  some  bioplasts,  by  an  inex- 
plicable blunder,  were  not  aggregated  into  that  life 
whose  mystery  they  are  supposed  to  aid  in  solving.  The 
superintendent  may  depart,  while  many  of  the  workmen 
are  still  living  and  blindly  working  on. 


330  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

WHAT  IS  THE  ORIGIN  OF  LIFE  ? 

To  this  question  various  answers  have  been  given: — 

1.  Life  on  the  earth  came  from  some  other  planet. 
This  is,  of  course,  no  solution  of  the  problem.  It  merely 
affirms  that  the  life  which  exists  on  this  planet  had  an 
extra-mundane  origin. 

2.  Life  originated  itself.  This  theory  has  no  basis 
upon  which  to  rest  except  the  exigencies  of  the  evolu- 
tional theory.  This,  even  Mr.  Huxley  admits.  It  is 
safe  to  assert  that  matter  never  could  have  originated  a 
new  set  of  molecular  arrangements,  thereby  generating 
the  bioplasmic  elements  from  which  bodies  were  self- 
constructed.  To  believe  that  a  few  atoms  of  matter 
chanced  to  combine  once,  and  once  only,  in  such  ways  as 
to  originate  "a  homogeneous  atom  of  plasson  "  ;  that 
this  "  primeval  parent  of  all  organisms,"  though  organless, 
evolved  higher  organisms,  by  molecular  changes  between 
its  own  particles;  that  it  moved  forwards  to  the  attain- 
ment of  intelligent  results,  though  devoid  of  intelligence 
and  without  a  superintending  agent;  that  there  is  no 
basic  difference  between  the  living  and  the  not-living, — 
is  to  most  minds  impossible. 

3.  Life  is  the  immediate  creation  of  an  Omnipotent 
Personality.  This  theory,  which  is  more  widely  accepted 
than  any  other,  maintains  that  every  true  species  is  a 
direct  creation.  It  repudiates  that  form  of  evolution 
which  assumes  that  all  organisms  are  evolved  from  pre- 
existing organisms  by  forces  inherent  therein.  It  asserts: 
If,  as  is  conceded,  life  must  have  been  breathed  into  at 
least  one  organism  by  an  Intelligent  Personality,  there 
is  nothing  unphilosophical  in  supposing  that  it  may  have 
been  breathed  into  each  distinct  species.  If  one  miracle 
must  have  occurred,  as  science  is  constrained  to  admit. 


LIFE    AND    ITS   RELATIONS    TO    MATTER.  331 

others  may  have  occurred.  God  is  eternally  existent, 
and  eternally  omnipotent.  He  did  not  cease  exist- 
ence, nor  cease  to  be  all-potent,  after  creating  one 
germ. 

4.  Life,  as  it  now  exists  in  various  species,  is  an 
evolution  from  parental  forms  which  were  a  direct  crea- 
tion of  God.  Life  came  from  Deity,  being  an  immediate 
creation  ex  niJiilo.  The  various  organisms  in  which  it 
now  pulsates  owe  their  origin  to  creation  by  derivation 
from  pre-existing  species,  or  to  evolution  in  some  form 
not  at  variance  with  theistic  conceptions  of  the  universe, 
and  not  open  to  the  objections  which  lie  against  all 
atheistic  forms  of  the  doctrine. 

5.  Life  is  a  necessary  and  involuntary  effluence  from 
God.  It  is  a  drop  from  the  fountain  of  His  own  being, 
possessing  as  He  does,  and  necessarily  must  possess,  life, 
consciousness,  mentality,  will,  affection,  moral-sense,  etc. 
The  life  He  possesses,  being  infinite,  must  necessarily 
flood  the  universe.  As  He  is  eternally  active,  His  life 
must  assume  all  possible  forms.  The  totality  of  life  in  the 
universe  is  God.  His  life  could  not  be  infinite  unless  it 
were  the  life  of  all  organisms.  If  plants  and  animals  had 
an  independent  existence,  in  other  words,  if  they  were 
not  an  integral  part  of  Him,  an  infinite  life  could  not  be 
regarded  as  one  of  His  attributes. 

6.  Life  is  a  volitional  effluence  from  God.  From  Him, 
by  an  act  of  His  own  will,  flows  a  limitless  ocean  of 
existence.  Individual  organisms  are  but  drops  of  spray 
thrown  up  from  the  heaving  sea  of  being.  Between  two 
vast  durations,  a  past  and  a  future,  they  throb  with  life 
for  a  brief  moment,  and  sink  back  again  into  the  billows, 
from  which  new  personalities  are  incessantly  emerging. 
"God  is  all  and  in  all." 

There  are  christian  theologians  who  are  indisposed  to 


332  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

permit  pantheism  to  monopolize  this  last  theory.  Di- 
vesting it  of  the  assumption  that  conscious  existence 
may  perhaps  lose  personal  identity,  they  prefer  it  to  any 
other  speculative  explanation  yet  furnished.  Life  is  a 
volitional  effluence  from  an  Infinite  Personality. 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

MIND    AND    MATTER. 

In  this  chapter,  and  in  chapters  following,  the  reader  is 
invited  to  consider  the  most  important  question  which 
is  engaging  the  speculative  world, — What  relation  sub- 
sists between  mind  and  matter  ?  Is  the  former  iden- 
tical with  the  latter  ?  is  it  one  of  its  attributes  ?  Is 
thought  an  effect  of  vibrations  in  brain-tissue,  the  vi- 
brations being  results  of  purely  physical  changes,  the 
changes  unavoidable  consequences  of  the  nutriment  sup- 
plied to  the  system  ?  Are  ideas  an  evolution  from  the  soil 
upon  which  we  tread  ?  Under  the  influence  of  air,  shower, 
and  sunshine,  does  the  mineral  kingdom  impart  to  the 
vegetable  the  forces  which  pass  under  the  designation 
"  vital,"  being  appropriated  by  man,  either  directly  or 
through  animal  food  ?  Are  the  intellect,  the  sensibilities, 
and  the  will,  modified  forms  of  matter  or  products  there- 
of ?  Are  mentality  and  its  fruitage — hope,  fear,  joy, 
sorrow,  gratitude,  love — only  transmutations  of  matter 
and  ordinary  physical  force  ?  Is  man  in  every  respect  the 
child  of  evolution,  in  origin,  in  life,  in  character  ?  Is 
human  freedom  but  a  spark  emitted  by  the  machinery  of 
life,  as  the  will  is  performing  its  allotted  task  in  move- 
ments that  are  as  irresistible  as  omnipotence,  and  as 
heartless  as  fate  ? 

The  discussion  of  these  and  similar  questions  neces- 


334  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

sitates  a  consideration  of  theories  which  pronounce 
sensation,  ideation,  and  volition  simply  molecular  changes 
produced  in  the  brain  by  a  force  inherent  therein;  which 
regard  matter  as  the  only  reality,  mind  being  one  of  its 
qualities  or  one  of  its  modes  of  existence;  which  desig- 
nate the  two  as  "  one  substance,  with  two  sets  of 
properties,  two  sides,  the  physical  and  the  spiritual 
— a  double-sided  unity."* 

Accepting  the  assertion  of  Dr.  W.  B.  Carpenter, — 
"  Between  matter  and  mind  it  is  utterly  vain  to  attempt 
to  establish  a  relation  of  identity," — we  present  evidence 
tending  to  confirm  faith  in  the  immateriality  of  the 
latter. 

Other  questions  also  press  for  solution.  How  is  the 
immaterial  connected  with  the  material  ?  Has  it  a 
special  organ  ?  or  is  it  diffused  throughout  the  body  ?  If 
its  seat  is  in  the  nervous  system,  in  which  part  are  its 
powers  concentrated  ?  Are  they  equally  in  all  its  parts, 
or  are  they  resident  in  certain  ganglionic  centers, — the 
spinal  cord,  the  medulla  oblongata,  the  pons  varolii,  the 
crura  cerebri,  the  quadrigemina,  the  corpora  striata,  the 
cerebellum,  and  the  cerebral  hemispheres  ?  Is  the  mind, 
in  its  totality,  in  each  ganglionic  center,  in  part  in  each, 
or  all  in  one  ?  If  all  is  in  each,  how  shall  we  prove  it 
an  undivided  unity  ?  If  part  is  in  each,  are  we  to  under- 
stand that  extension  is  a  property  of  immaterial  unity  ? 
If  all  is  in  one,  in  which  is  it  resident,  and  how  are 
its  mandates  communicated  to  other  centers  ?  As  men- 
tal force  and  organic  structure  are  so  correlated  that  it 
is  difficult  to  see  how  one  can  be  active  without  the 
other,  if  indeed  either  can  exist  alone;  and  afs  we  have 
no  conclusive  evidence  that  mentality  is  possible  with- 
out physical  organs, — are  we  to  conclude  that  mind,  like 
*  Mind  and  Body,  Alexander  Bain,  p.  196. 


MIND    AND    MATTER.  335 

the  tissues  it  employs,  is  a  result  of  growth  and  perishes 
with  the  organism  ?  If  the  two  are  developed  concur- 
rently, are  they  inseparable  as  long  as  either  exists  ? 
If  not  a  concurrent  development,  which  is  effect  and 
which  is  cause  ?  Has  the  mind  developed  an  organism 
adapted  to  its  purposes  ?  or  has  the  organism  evolved 
a  mind  which  shall  be  its  agent  ?  Can  mentality  re- 
tain conscious  existence  after  the  material  organism 
has  perished  ?  Can  the  organism  continue  to  exist  after 
mentality  has  departed  ?  Is  man's  animal-life  so  far  dis- 
tinct from  his  mental  that  it  can  be  maintained  after  all 
mind  is  lost  ? 

How  many  and  what  are  the  faculties  of  mind  ?  Is  each 
correlated  to  a  particular  portion  of  the  brain  ?  Is  each 
dependent  for  its  vigor  upon  the  quantity  and  quality 
of  the  brain-tissue  it  employs  ?  Is  each  requisite  to  the 
mental  constitution,  being  present  in  the  new-born  babe 
— in  the  human  egg  ab  initio  ?  If  none  are  evolved,  how 
are  we  to  explain  the  fact  that  reason  and  conscience  are 
in  large  measure  dependent  on  education,  even  the  adult 
being  capable  of  acquiring  new  mental  aptitudes,  brain- 
tissue  being  so  modified  as  to  enable  him  to  perform 
mechanical  operations  once  impossible  to  him,  almost 
inconceivable  ?  If  one  or  more  faculties  are  capable  of 
evolution,  material  agents  being  efficient  in  the  origi- 
nation of  mental  force,  why  may  not  other  faculties  be 
evolved  ? 

Again:  does  belief  in  the  materiality  of  mind  preclude 
belief  in  its  immortality  ?  If,  as  science  affirms,  matter 
is  indestructible,  may  it  not  be  that  matter  in  the  form 
of  mind — if  mind  is  mere  matter — may  be  indestructible, 
not  merely  in  its  essence,  but  in  its  form,  as  much  so  as 
the  atom  of  gross  matter  is?  If  mind  is  an  immaterial 
force,  and  by  consequence,  like  all  force,  indestructible. 


336  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

is  it  so  inseparably  associated  with  matter  that  when  the 
body  perishes,  it  is  allied  with  other  matter  ?  And  if 
being  indestructible,  it  must  continue  to  exist,  and  must 
continue  its  alliance  with  matter,  have  we  any  right  to 
assume,  without  the  shadow  of  evidence,  that  it  may 
undergo  conversion  to  such  an  extent  as  to  lose  the 
consciousness  of  individual  existence  and  the  sense  of 
personal  identity  ? 

Questions  such  as  these,  momentous  beyond  compari- 
son and  intricate  to  the  last  degree,  are  exciting  warm 
discussions  in  the  present  day.  Without  attempting  their 
solution — a  solution  which  even  the  ablest  philosophers 
are  unequal  to  the  task  of  furnishing — we  may  legitimately 
undertake  to  present  the  fruits  of  modern  research,  as 
far  as  satisfactory  results  have  been  attained.  Is  mind 
equally  diffused  throughout  the  body  ?  Is  it  divisible  ? 
Is  the  brain  its  organ  ?  Is  it  no  more  than  a  form  of 
matter  ?  Is  it  an  attribute  of  matter  ?  Is  it  one  side 
of  a  "  double-faced  unity"  ? 

Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  these  and 
kindred  questions — all  of  which  are  exceedingly  diffi- 
cult— it  is  proper  to  acknowledge  indebtedness  to  Drs. 
Carpenter,  Ferrier,  and  Dalton,  whose  views  commend 
themselves  to  reason  and  carry  greater  weight  than  the 
reasoning  of  those  who  advocate  antagonistic  opinions. 
Under  the  leadership  of  authors  who  have  studied  the 
subject  thoroughly,  and  who  manifest  a  sincere  desire 
to  rid  themselves  of  prejudice,  the  reader  may  hope  to 
secure  reliable  knowledge. 

In  order  to  present  the  subject  in  a  manner  fitted  to 
leave  an  undivided  impression  upon  the  mind,  it  is  nec- 
essary to  consider,  briefly  at  least,  the  several  parts 
of  the  nervous  system,  and  ascertain,  as  far  as  may  be 
possible,  the  functions  of  each.     After  examining  these  as 


MIND    AND    MATTER.  337 

minutely  as  the  limits  of  the  present  work  will  permit, 
the  reader,  it  is  hoped,  will  be  in  possession  of  the  facts 
upon  which  an  argument  can  be  constructed. 

THE   NERVOUS   SYSTEM. 

The  Spinal  Cord: — This,  contained  in  the  spinal  canal 
and  sending  nerves  to  the  muscles  and  to  the  epidermis, 
consists,  on  its  outer  surface,  of  a  white  substance;  and 
within,  of  gray  matter.  The  white  substance  is  the 
medium  of  communication  between  the  brain  and  the 
various  parts  of  the  body.  The  gray  substance  is  a  ner- 
vous center  in  which  impulses  may  originate.  These 
impulses  are  reflex  in  character,  not  volitional,  as  will 
hereafter  appear. 

The  spinal  cord  is  composed  of  the  same  materials  as 
the  brain;  with  this  marked  difference,  however,  that 
whereas,  in  the  former,  the  gray  matter  is  within,  in  the 
latter,  the  gray  matter  is  on  the  surface;  and  whereas,  in 
the  brain  there  is  an  almost  endless  variety  in  structure, 
in  the  spinal  cord  there  is  a  continuous  repetition  of  the 
same  structure. 

Afferent  and  Efferent  Nerves: — There  are  two  sets  of 
nerves;  first,  those  which  convey  impressions  to  the  brain, 
called  afferent  or  sensory  nerves;  second,  those  which 
convey  impulses  from  the  brain  to  the  parts  of  the  body, 
denominated  efferent,  motor,  or  volitional  nerves.  It  is 
only  through  the  afferent  nerves  that  the  mind  becomes 
cognizant  of  the  external  world.  *  It  is  only  through  the 
efferent  nerves  that  volitions  are  communicated  to  the 
parts  of  the  body.     If  the  finger  touches  a  hot  iron,  the 

*  These  nerves  invariably  report  impressions  as  received  at  their  extremities, 
and  not  as  received  at  some  point  along  their  path.  Consequen  tly,  if  a  leg  is 
amputated,  the  patient  may  feel  pains  in  his  foot;  that  is,  the  nerves,  which  ere 
the  leg  was  amputated  ran  to  the  toes,  convey  to  the  brain  an  impression  which 
is  interpreted  by  the  brain  as  a  pain  in  the  amputated  foot 


338  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

afferent  nerves  convey  an  impression  to  the  brain.  *  The 
will  thereupon  orders  a  withdrawal  of  the  finger  from 
contact  with  the  heated  surface.  This  order  is  conveyed 
by  the  efferent  nerves  to  the  muscle  which  moves  the 
finger.  A  contraction  of  the  muscle  immediately  takes 
place,  and  the  injured  member  is  withdrawn.  If  the 
efferent  nerves  in  the  finger  were  all  severed,  there 
would  be  no  impression  conveyed  to  the  sensorium.  If 
the  sensorium  were  insensible  to  the  impression,  there 
would  be  no  sense  of  pain,  however  severe  the  burning 
might  be.  If  the  efferent  nerves  in  the  arm  were  severed, 
there  would  be  no  volitional  movement,  though,  as  is 
frankly  conceded,  there  would  be  reflex  movement.  It 
has  been  ascertained  that  a  certain  amount  of  time  is 
necessary  for  the  transmission  of  a  sensory  impression 
to  the  brain,  for  the  brain  to  originate  a  volition,  and 
for  the  transmission  of  this  volition  through  the  efferent 
nerves  to  the  part  to  be  moved.  Dr.  Ferrier  has  computed 
the  time  requisite  in  each  of  the  three  processes. 

These  nerves,  both  the  afferent  and  the  efferent,  pass 
into  the  spinal  cord,  and  constitute  its  white  substance, 
the  spinal  cord  being  thus  the  only  means  of  communica- 
tion between  the  brain  and  the  periphery.  The  impres- 
sions upon  the  periphery  are  consequently  conveyed  to 
the  brain  exclusively  through  the  spinal  cord,  by  the 
afferent  nerves;  and  the  volitions  are  transmitted  to  the 
muscles  exclusively  through  the  spinal  cord,  by  the  effer- 
ent nerves.  Hence,  as  might  be  expected,  the  division 
of  the  spinal  cord  destroys  at  once  all  sensibility,  and  all 
power  of  voluntary  movement,  in  the  parts  below  the 
division,  communication  with  the  brain  being  severed. 
Consequently,  there  can  be  no  further  consciousness  of 
pain  in  the  parts  below  the  division,  for  they  have  no 
connection    with   the   sensorium;    nor   can    volitions  be 


MIND    AND    MATTER.  339 

communicated  to  the  parts  below  the  injury,  for  the  only 
means  of  transmitting  them  is  destroyed,  the  efferent 
nerves  being  cut. 

Still,  after  the  spinal  cord  is  severed,  if  the  sole  of 
the  foot  is  tickled,  convulsive  movements  are  noticeable. 
They  are  involuntary,  however;  and  originate  in  the  gray 
matter  of  the  spinal  cord,  which  is  a  nervous  center  for 
corresponding  regions  of  the  body.  There  is  no  con- 
sciousness of  the  irritation  and  no  volitional  movement  of 
the  foot,  the  convulsive  jerks  being  merely  reflex  actions. 
It  is  conceded  that  the  spinal  cord  possesses  functions  as 
an  independent  nerve-center,  as  well  as  the  functions  it 
possesses  as  a  medium  of  communication  between  the 
brain  and  the  periphery.  The  impressions  made  on  the 
integument  are  conveyed  by  afferent  nerves  to  the  gray 
matter  of  the  spinal  cord,  whence  an  impulse  may  be  sent 
along  the  efferent  nerves  to  the  muscles,  causing  them  to 
contract.  Such  action  is  termed  reflex,  and  of  it  con- 
sciousness is  not  a  necessary  attendant.  The  palm  of 
a  sleeping  infant,  if  touched,  will  close.  There  is,  how- 
ever, no  consciousness  of  the  tactile  impression.  The 
same  touch,  if  the  child  is  in  a  waking  state,  would  excite 
conscious  sensation,  and  the  closing  of  the  hand  might 
be  either  reflex  or  volitional.  If  a  drop  of  acid  is 
placed  on  the  leg  of  a  decapitated  frog,  the  foot  of  the 
same  side  is  raised  to  remove  the  irritant.  If  this  foot  is 
'amputated,  an  attempt  is  made  to  scratch  the  irritated 
part  with  the  mutilated  member;  after  failure  to  ac- 
complish the  coveted  result,  the  other  foot  is  raised  and 
the  cause  of  irritation  is  removed.  This,  though  regarded 
by  some  as  an  evidence  of  intelligence  in  the  spinal  cord, 
is  considered  by  most  physiologists,  among  whom  are 
Drs.  Ferrier  and  Carpenter,  as  a  purely  reflex  movement, 
it  being  conceded  that  adapted  actions,  resembling  those 


340  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

which  sensation  and  intelligence  dictate,  are  possible  to 
the  spinal  cord  independent  of  consciousness. 

If  two  frogs,  one  of  which  is  rendered  sightless  and 
the  other  brainless,  are  placed  in  water  and  the  tempera- 
ture gradually  raised,  the  former  attempts  to  escape 
when  the  temperature  reaches  250  C;  the  latter  remains 
quiet,  being  apparently  insensible  to  the  boiling  process. 
Still,  if  acid  is  dropped  upon  the  leg  of  the  brainless  frog, 
reflex  action  takes  place.  This  seems  to  prove  that  the 
spinal  cord  is  not  a  nervous  center  of  conscious  sensation; 
and  that  the  brain  is. 

Again:  if  the  spinal  cord  is  severely  injured  immedi- 
ately below  the  origin  of  the  nerves  belonging  to  the 
diaphragm,  respiration,  though  imperfect,  continues,  and 
life  may  be  maintained,  sometimes  for  five  or  six  days. 
Consciousness  is  retained.  Vision  is  unimpaired.  Hear- 
ing remains  as  acute  as  before  the  injury.  The  reasoning 
powers  are  as  clear  as  usual.  The  victim  is  a  living  head, 
and  nothing  more.  Hence,  we  are  justified  in  concluding 
that  the  mind  is  not  equally  diffused  throughout  the  body, 
but  has  its  seat  in  the  brain.  Mind  is  seemingly  an 
indivisible  unity,  its  powers  being  concentrated  in  the 
head,  though  we  are  not  warranted  in  asserting  that 
mind,  as  a  unity,  has  a  local  habitation  in  any  one  part 
of  the  cerebrum,  but  rather  that  intellectual  activity,  in 
its  totality,  is  dependent  on  the  conjoint  action  of  many 
parts,  whose  several  functions  are  capable  of  being  in 
measure  differentiated.  True,  grief  causes  tears  to  flow, 
and  mental  anxiety  stops  the  secretion  of  saliva,  and 
deep  emotion  interferes  with  the  action  of  the  heart,  but 
the  only  legitimate  inference  from  these  facts  is  that 
different  states  of  mind  affect  different  classes  of  muscles 
without  any  exercise  whatever  of  volition.  It  does  not 
prove  that  grief  has  its  seat  in  the  ducts  of  the  eye,  nor 


MIND    AND    MATTER.  341 

that  anxiety  has  its  seat  in  the  fauces,  nor  that  love  has 
its  seat  in  the  heart. 

Nor  does  the  fact  that  some  animals  may  be  divided 
into  several  parts,  each  part  becoming  a  distinct  indi- 
vidual, prove  that  mind  is  divisible,  and  is  diffused  through 
the  entire  body.  The  animals  which  may  be  divided 
without  causing  death  to  the  several  parts,  but  producing 
new  complete  specimens,  may  be  insensible  in  all  the 
parts,  having  no  true  mind  anywhere;  or,  they  may  be 
compound  animals  with  several,  perhaps  an  almost  in- 
numerable, number  of  centers  of  sensation,  and  possibly 
of  volition,  each  part  being  capable  of  an  independent 
life.  Undoubtedly  mere  animal  life  may  exist  without 
either  sensation  or  volition.  Those  animals,  which  live 
after  division,  exhibit  no  signs  of  possessing  anything 
more  than  the  power  of  reflex  movement;  and  possibly 
have  few  if  any  properties  higher  than  those  which  belong 
to  forms  of  vegetable  life  which  reproduce  themselves 
from  a  single  cell. 

The  Brain: — This  is  composed  of  various  deposits 
of  gray  matter  and  of  an  underlying  white  substance. 
The  latter,  which  is  of  a  soft  consistence,  serves  as  a  me- 
dium of  communication  between  different  sections  of  the 
encephalon,  or  as  a  means  of  receiving  impressions  from, 
and  transmitting  volitions  to,  the  different  parts  of  the 
body  through  either  the  afferent  or  the  efferent  nerves,  sen- 
sory impressions  being  transmitted  from  the  periphery  to 
the  gray  matter  of  the  brain,  and  volitions  being  trans- 
mitted from  the  gray  matter  to  the  periphery.  The  gray 
substance  is  of  a  still  softer  consistence  than  the  white, 
and  is  cellular  in  its  structure,  and  is  abundantly  supplied 
with  blood-vessels. 

In  this  gray  substance  the  fibers  of  the  white  have 
their   origin;    and   nervous  force,   which   is   regarded   as 


342  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

originating  in  the  former,  is  conducted,  directed,  and 
utilized  by  the  latter.  The  gray  matter  is  not  itself  ade- 
quate to  the  origination  of  nervous  force,  the  presence  of 
scarlet  blood  being  indispensable;  that  is,  a  fluid  manu- 
factured in  the  body,  and  having  undergone  a  chemical 
change  by  exposure  to  air  in  the  lungs,  must  circulate 
through  the  veins  of  the  gray  matter,  or  there  is  no 
nervous  force.  Sensibility,  even  in  cold-blooded  animals 
can  continue  only  a  short  time  after  the  supply  of  scarlet 
blood  has  ceased;  and  when  the  brain  has  become  sur- 
charged with  dark-colored  blood,  some  time  must  elapse 
before  complete  sensibility  returns.  Certain  foreign  sub- 
stances,— alcohol,  chloroform,  opium,  etc., — are  capable 
of  producing  a  similiar  insensibility.  Indeed,  unconscious- 
ness may  be  produced  in  varied  ways;  and  consciousness 
may  continue  long  after  the  most  skillful  observer  regards 
it  as  lost.  It  may  even  continue  down  to  the  time  of 
death;  almost  to  the  moment  of  dissolution,  as  numerous 
examples  incontestably  prove.  The  fear  of  death  which 
is  so  common  to  man  in  seasons  of  health,  may  be  taken 
away,  no  doubt  is  taken  away,  as  we  draw  near  the  hour 
of  dissolution.  The  dread  of  dying,  which  is  given  us 
when  we  are  to  live,  is  generally  displaced  by  satisfaction 
with  life  when  we  are  die. 

Some,  accordingly,  are  disposed  to  regard  every  form 
of  mental  activity  as  a  result  of  changes  in  the  brain 
itself;  which  changes  they  regard  as  purely  mechanical, 
or  as  closely  analogous  to  the  chemical  changes  which 
occur  in  inorganic  matter,  being  similar  to  the  phenom- 
ena which  we  refer  to  the  agency  of  the  physical  forces, — 
light,  heat,  electricity,  magnetism,  and  chemical  affinity. 
They  are  unwilling  to  regard  intellectual  exercises  as 
the  activity  of  an  independent  mental  force. 

Possibly   it  is   conceivable    that    the    changes   in    the 


MIND    AND    MATTER.  343 

brain,  both  those  produced  by  the  reception  of  sensory 
impressions  through  the  afferent  nerves,  and  the  impulses 
which  originating  in  the  gray  substance  are  transmitted 
through  the  efferent  nerves,  may  be  results  of  a  force 
similar  to  that  which  produces  the  phenomena  of  elec- 
tricity. It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  mind  is  an 
attribute  of  matter;  nor  that  these  changes  in  the  brain 
may  not  be  a  result  of  mental  force, which  may  possibly 
be  as  different  from  physical  forces  as  these  are  differ- 
ent from  inertia,  impenetrability,  etc.  The  elements 
of  which  the  brain  is  composed  exist,  it  is  true,  in 
the  scarlet  blood,  and  are  obtained,  in  measure,  from 
the  air.  This  does  not  prove  that  the  brain  and  the 
mind  are  identical.  The  elements  in  the  scarlet  blood 
undergo  a  chemical  change  before  they  are  incorporated 
into  the  brain.  This  does  not  imply  that  matter  can  be 
so  transmuted  that  mentality  may  be  one  of  its  prop- 
erties. Again:  the  material  elements  which  enter  into 
the  composition  of  the  brain  undergo  a  chemical  change, 
during  the  process  by  which  thought  is  evolved,  before 
they  are  again  received  into  the  circulation.  Does  it 
follow  that  thought  is  matter,  or  some  quality  of  matter  ? 
Does  it  follow  that  volitional  impulses  are  material  en- 
tities, or  are  modifications  of  physical  forces  ? 

It  is  conceded  that  science  is  at  present  incompetent 
to  determine  the  character  of  the  physical  changes 
which  take  place  in  the  brain  in  the  process  of  thought; 
nor  is  it  competent  to  the  task  of  determining  by  what 
agency  they  are  produced.  Certainly  it  is  premature  to 
affirm  that  all  these  changes  are  produced  by  purely  phys- 
ical agents,  though  it  is  conceded  that  the  more  rapid 
these  physical  changes  are,  the  more  active  the  mind 
is  at  any  given  time.  But  that  mental  force  is  an  effect, 
and   not   the  cause,  of  these  physical  changes   has   not 


344  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

been  proved;  and  the  freedom  of  the  human  will  seems 
to  render  it  more  than  probable  that  no  such  conclusion 
can  be  legitimately  reached.  An  act  of  volition  can  set 
the  entire  mental  machinery  into  motion.  Is  it  possible 
to  regard  this  act  of  will  as  a  result  of  purely  physical 
changes  ?  If  so,  man  is  indeed  under  a  fatal  necessity, 
and  is  yet  so  deluded  as  to  imagine  himself  free.  Am  I 
to  conclude  that  ere  I  decided  upon  the  form  in  which 
this  sentence  should  be  constructed,  physical  changes 
had  taken  place  in  the  brain  which  irrevocably  deter- 
mined its  structure,  and  the  very  words  which  should 
compose  it  ?  Are  the  changes  antecedent  to  the  vo- 
lition ?  If  they  are,  liberty  is  a  delusion.  If  they  are 
not,  then  mental  force  may  set  physical  forces  into 
operation.  As  a  result  of  a  volition  to  engage  in  a  pro- 
cess of  thought,  the  brain  becomes  active.  This  activ- 
ity is  accompanied  by  an  elimination  of  salts  containing 
phosphorus,  the  quantity  of  phosphorus  being  deter- 
mined, in  measure  at  least,  by  the  amount  of  nervous 
activity.  The  act  of  will  has  produced  physical  effects, 
not  alone  in  the  brain,  but  throughout  almost  the  entire 
organization,  in  the  lungs,  in  the  heart,  in  the  kidneys, 
in  the  stomach,  in  the  nerves,  in  the  muscles. 

It  is  idle,  however,  to  speculate  on  the  nature  of  the 
relation  between  mind  and  matter.  We  might  as  well 
attempt  to  explain  the  relation  of  gravitation  to  iron,  or 
of  electricity  to  amber.  To  regard  magnetism  as  a  form 
of  matter  would  be  no  more  unreasonable  than  to  regard 
mentality  as  such;  but  magnetism,  and  as  well  light,  heat, 
electricity,  and  chemical  affinity,  scientists  persist  in  re- 
garding as  modes  of  motion,  and  of  course  immaterial. 
Why  then  may  not  mind  also  be  immaterial  ?  And  as 
these  several  physical  forces  are  uniformly  found  in  con- 
junction with  matter — though  the  impossibility  of  their 


MIND    AND    MATTER.  345 

existence  separate  from  matter  cannot  be  proved — is 
there  anything  contrary  to  analogy  in  finding  mental 
force  associated  with  brain-tissue  ?  And  until  it  has 
been  conclusively  proved  that  each  one  of  these  physical 
forces  is  a  series  of  molecular  changes  in  matter,  why  as- 
sume that  the  more  complicated  force,  mind,  is  nothing 
more  than  a  succession  of  such  molecular  changes  ? 

The  principal  divisions  of  the  brain  are: — the  medulla 
oblongata,  the  cerebellum,  the  pons  varolii,  the  crura 
cerebri,  the  corpora  quadrigemina,  the  optic  thalami,  the 
corpora  striata,  the  cerebrum.  * 

What  are  the  functions  of  these  several  parts  ? 

The  functions  of  the  medulla  oblongata: — This  is 
regarded  as  a  complex  center  of  reflex  co-ordination. 
If  the  encephalic  centers  above  the  medulla  are  re- 
moved, voluntary  motion  ceases,  though  life  continues. 
Reflex  movements  may  be  produced  by  stimulation  of 
any  region  which  receives  its  nervous  supply  from  the 
medulla.  Thus,  the  eyelids  may  be  made  to  close,  the 
facial  muscles  to  contract,  the  tongue  to  move,  the  ear  to 

*  "After  reaching  the  foramen  magnum  of  the  skull,  the  spinal  cord  ex- 
pands into  the  medulla  oblongata.  .  .  .  Through  this  pass  the  efferent  and 
afferent  nerves,  though  it  is  difficult  to  trace  the  individual  tracks  of  each.  .  .  . 
The  motor  paths  undergo  decussation  at  the  anterior  aspect  of  the  lower  extre- 
mity of  the  medulla  oblongata,  at  a  point  termed  the  decussation  of  the  pyra- 
mids ....  At  this  point,  therefore,  the  path  of  the  motor  or  efferent  im- 
pulses from  the  hemispheres  crosses  to  the  opposite  side  of  the  cord.  .  .  . 
Emerging  from  the  medulla  oblongata  the  tracks  pass  into  the  pons  varolii. 
.  .  .  The  decussation  of  the  various  sensory  and  motor  tracks  is  complete  in 
the  pons,  hence  destruction  of  one  side  causes  paralysis  of  motion  and  sensation 
on  the  opposite  side,  and  also  paralysis  of  the  cranial  nerves  on  the  same  side." 

"Beyond  the  pons  varolii  and  re-inforced  by  fibers  derived  from  it  and  its 
connections,  the  tracks  appear  as  two  peduncles,  or  limbs,  called  the  crura  ce- 
rebri. On  the  posterior  aspect  of  the  crura,  and  anterior  to  the  cerebellum, 
are  situated  certain  ganglionic  masses,  termed  the  corpora  quadrigemina,  or 
optic  lobes.  ...  In  the  crura  there  is  a  distinct  separation  between  the 
sensory  and  motor  tracks.   .   .   .     The  crura  cerebri  pass  into  the  two  great 


34G  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

twitch, — if  the  sensory  nerves  of  these  parts  are  irritated. 
If  food  is  placed  in  the  back  of  the  mouth,  deglutition 
takes  place.  These  movements — possibly  even  when 
every  center  above  the  med  la  is  destroyed — are  purely 
reflex.  Volition  is  in  no  way  connected  with  them;  nor  is 
the  subject  conscious  of  the  movements. 

It  is  also  probable  that  the  medulla  is  the  co-ordi- 
nating center  of  the  movements  concerned  in  articulate 
speech,  the  mere  movements  being  seemingly  possible, 
though  of  course  intelligent  speech  is  not,  since  this 
demands  the  activity  of  higher  nervous  centers.  Thus, 
a  rat,  if  deprived  of  all  the  encephalic  centers  above 
the  medulla,  gives  a  cry,  as  if  in  pain,  when  the  foot  is 
pinched;  but  if  the  medulla  is  destroyed,  no  cry  is  heard, 
death  ensuing  without  the  utterance  of  any  sound.  As 
the  medulla  is  the  co-ordinating  center  of  respiratory 
movements,  which  are  purely  reflex,  of  course  breathing 
continues  as  long  as  the  medulla  remains  uninjured;  and 
as  long  as  the  possibility  of  breathing  continues,  there 
is  also  the  possibility  of  uttering  cries,  which  are 
also  simply  reflex  actions.  As  soon  as  the  medulla 
is  destroyed,  respiration — except  in  the  case  of  cold- 
blooded  animals,   which   live   for   a   time   by  respiration 

ganglia  situated  at  the  base  of  the  brain.  .  .  .  One  of  these  basal  ganglia, 
the  posterior  pair,  is  called  the  optic  thalami;  the  anterior,  the  corpora 
striata.  .  .  .  The  optic  thalami  are  ganglia  of  the  sensory  track,  and  the 
corpora  striata,  ganglia  of  the  motor  track." 

"  The  cerebellum  occupies  a  position  above  the  medulla  oblongata  and 
pons  varolii  and  posterior  to  the  corpora  quadrigemina.  Its  surface  is  dis- 
posed in  the  form  of  laminated  folds,  the  gray  matter  which  forms  the  surface 
exhibits  on  section  the  form  of  leaflets.  .  .  .  The  cerebellum  is  connected 
with  the  medulla  oblongata  by  two  peduncles,  termed  the  inferior  peduncles  of 
the  cerelxdlum." 

"  The  cerebral  hemispheres  form  each  a  sort  of  hollow  shell  enclosing  and 
overlapping  the  great  basal  ganglia." — Functions  of  the  Brain,  Ferrier,  pp.  6. 
7,  8,  9,  12,  13. 


MIND    AND    MATTER.  347 

through  the  skin — is  no  longer  possible,  and  death 
follows. 

It  is  conceded  that  the  mechanism  of  respiration  is 
essentially  reflex  in  its  character,  though,  as  is  evident 
in  the  movements  concerned  in  articulation  and  vocaliza- 
tion, it  is  subject  in  measure  to  the  will.  The  control  of 
the  will  over  respiration  is,  however,  very  limited.  By 
an  act  of  will,  we  may  cease  to  breathe  for  a  brief  time, 
it  is  true;  but  control  over  this  reflex  activity  of  the  me- 
dulla cannot  be  long  maintained.  The  will  is  forced  to 
succumb.  In  like  manner,  the  will  has  a  limited  control 
over  the  movements  concerned  in  the  expulsion  of  the 
fceces  and  the  urine.  The  movements,  however,  are  es- 
sentially reflex.  The  same  is  true  in  reference  to  sneez- 
ing and  coughing.  Each  can  be  partially  repressed. 
Each  can  be  done  in  obedience  to  a  command  from  the 
will;  though  both,  and  especially  the  former,  are  so  es- 
sentially reflex  actions,  that  the  volitional  can  be  readily 
distinguished  from  the  automatic. 

The  pulsations  of  the  heart  are  also  modified  through 
the  nerves  which  center  in  the  medulla.  Of  these  nerves, 
one  set  accelerates,  the  other  retards,  the  action  of  this 
organ.  The  former  set  can  be  excited  to  increased  ac- 
tivity by  muscular  exertion. 

The  blood  vessels  are  also  to  some  extent  under  the 
control  of  the  medulla. 

It  thus  becomes  evident  that  the  medulla  oblongata  is 
the  co-ordinating  center  of  the  reflex  actions  essential  to 
the  continuance  of  life;  which  is  not  a  result  of  a  series  of 
volitions;  nor  can  it  be  made  to  terminate  by  an  act  of 
will.  As  long  as  the  medulla  remains  uninjured,  even 
though  all  above  it  may  be  destroyed,  life  may  continue. 
Respiration  goes  on.  The  heart  continues  to  beat.  De- 
glutition is  possible,  provided  the  food  is  placed  at  the 


34S  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

root  of  the  tongue.  The  sensory  nerves  re-act  to  impres- 
sions. There  is,  however,  no  sensation  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  that  is,  there  is  no  consciousness  of 
impressions  made  on  the  integument;  nor  are  there  any 
movements  indicating  intelligence.  The  mutilated  or- 
ganism is  simply  an  automatic  mechanism. 

The  functions  of  the  mesencephalon  and  the  cerebellum: 
— For  the  purpose  in  view,  it  is  not  necessary  to  enter 
upon  the  vexed  question,  What  are  the  specific  functions 
of  each  of  the  parts  of  the  brain  designated  as  the  pons 
varolii,  the  crura  cerebri,  the  corpora  quadrigemina,  and 
the  cerebellum.  Physiologists  concede  that  it  is  not 
possible  to  differentiate  with  accuracy  the  functions  of 
each.  Accordingly,  it  is  proper  to  confine  the  discussion 
to  a  consideration  of  the  function  of  these  parts  in  to- 
tality. What  these  are  can  be  ascertained  by  removing 
from  animals  all  the  centers  in  advance  of  the  quadrige- 
mina, that  is,  by  the  removal  of  the  cerebral  hemispheres. 
The  frog,  deprived  of  the  cerebral  lobes,  is  capable  of 
maintaining  its  equilibrium.  Laid  on  the  back  it  will 
recover  its  normal  position.  Placed  on  a  board  which  is 
gradually  tilted  to  one  side,  it  will  make  the  movements 
necessary  to  keep  the  center  of  gravity  within  the  base. 
Pinched,  it  will  hop  away.  Thrown  into  the  water,  it 
will  swim.  Stroked  gently  upon  the  back,  it  will  croak. 
Placed  in  heated  water,  it  will  not  remain  quiet  till  boiled 
to  death,  as  the  frog  will  in  which  all  the  centers  above 
the  medulla  have  been  destroyed.  Thrust  to  the  bottom 
of  a  vessel  of  water,  it  will  ascend  to  the  surface  for  air. 
It  will  hop  around  an  object  placed  in  the  line  of  its 
progress. 

Between  the  frog  deprived  of  its  hemispheres  and  the 
unmutilated  specimen,  there  is,  however,  one  marked  dif- 
ference.    In  the  former,  all  voluntary  movements  are  at 


MIND    AND    MATTER.  349 

an  end.  Its  movements  are  automatic.  Memory  also  is 
destroyed,  as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  once  timid 
creature  now  manifests  no  fear  under  any  circumstances. 
It  sits  quiet,  or  if  induced  to  move  by  a  momentary  im- 
pulse, moves  ordinarily  in  a  straight  line  till  the  impulse 
has  exhausted  itself,  and  then  again  lapses  into  quiet. 
Unless  artificially  fed,  it  will  die  of  starvation,  there  be- 
ing no  will  to  appropriate  food,  and  no  memory  of  the 
past  prompting  it  to  associate  food  with  the  gratification 
of  an  inward  desire;  indeed,  though  dying  of  starvation, 
it  can  have  no  sense  of  hunger;  and  though  pricked 
with  needles,  it  can  have  no  feeling  of  pain.  There  is  no 
further  consciousness  of  the  condition  of  the  body. 

A  pigeon  from  which  the  cerebral  hemispheres  have 
been  taken  is  capable  of  maintaining  a  standing  posture, 
and  even  of  regaining  its  feet,  if  laid  upon  its  side;  also  of 
flying,  if  thrown  into  the  air.  Left  undisturbed,  however, 
it  remains  perfectly  quiet.  Ammonia  placed  near  its 
nostrils  causes  it  to  start  back.  A  light  flashed  before 
its  eyes  causes  the  pupils  to  dilate.  The  discharge  of  a 
pistol  produces  .a  sudden  start.  Consequently,  smell, 
sight,  and  hearing  are  not  destroyed.  After  each  active 
manifestation,  caused  by  stimulation,  it  sinks  back  into  a 
state  of  repose  resembling  profound  sleep. 

Like  the  frog,  it  has  no  power  of  volition,  no  memory, 
and  no  consciousness  of  pain.  Unless  artificially  fed,  it 
will  die  of  starvation.  It  cannot  be  frightened  by  move- 
ments which  produce  fright  in  the  unmutilated  specimen. 
It  gives  no  evidence  of  suffering  pain,  except  movements 
which  may  be  regarded  as  reflex. 

A  removal  of  the  hemispheres  from  a  rabbit  is  accom- 
panied with  like  results.  The  animal  retains  the  power 
of  locomotion  and  of  preserving  its.  equilibrium.  If  it 
begins   to  run,  it  runs  headlong.     The   pupils   contract 


3">0  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

under  a  strong  light.  The  eyelids  wink.  A  loud  noise 
causes  a  sudden  start.  Acid  placed  on  the  tongue  causes 
attempts  to  remove  the  irritant.  If  the  feet  are  severely 
pinched,  prolonged  cries  are  uttered.  Undisturbed,  the 
animal  remains  quiet  and  dies  of  starvation  in  the  midst 
of  plenty.  If  food  is  placed  in  its  mouth,  it  swallows 
and  may  be  kept  alive  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time. 

The  conclusion  deducible  from  these  and  similar  ex- 
periments is,  that  neither  these  centers  nor  those  below 
them  are  in  themselves  capable  of  originating  voli- 
tions or  sensations  proper.  The  mesencephalic  centers 
and  the  cerebellar  centers  have  as  their  functions, 
(i)  the  maintenance  of  equilibrium,  (2)  the  co-ordination 
of  movements  concerned  in  locomotion,  (3)  the  move- 
ments expressive  of  emotions.  All  actions  in  these  cen- 
ters are  performed  in  response  to  stimulus  communicated 
to  them  through  the  afferent  nerves,  except  such  as  are 
purely  reflex.  In  no  case  have  they  any  connection  with 
volition,  intelligence,  memory,  or  consciousness.  Some 
movements  originating  in  these  centers  seem  volitional, 
it  is  true,  and  appear  to  manifest  an  intelligent  adaptation 
of  means  to  the  accomplishment  of  a  coveted  result. 
They  are  volitional,  however,  only  in  appearance.  When 
we  come  to  examine  the  nature  of  the  impressions  which 
are  the  immediate  antecedent  of  these  activities  it  is  found 
to  be  purely  physical,  not  psychical.  If  sensation  is  to 
be  defined  as  the  consciousness  of  an  impression,  the 
question  resolves  itself  into  this,  Is  consciousness  attend- 
ant on  the  activity  of  the  mesencephalic  centers  ?  This 
question  Drs.  Dalton  and  Ferrier  answer  in  the  negative.* 

*  Dr.  Carpenter,  while  asserting  that  "the  motor  fibers  which  pass  from  the 
brain,  though  commonly  designated  cerebral,  cannot  be  certainly  said  to  have 
a  higher  origin  than  the  corpora  striata  "  (p.  121),  yet  affirms,  "Although  every 
segment  of  the  spinal  cord  and  every  part  of  the  sensory  ganglia,  may  be  con- 
sidered, in  common  with  the  cerebrum,  as  an  independent  center  of  nervous 


MIND    AND    MATTER.  351 

Nor  is  the  simple  faculty  of  adaptation  a  proof  of  con- 
scious choice.  Such  power  of  adapted  action  pertains  in 
measure  to  the  spinal  cord,  though  no  physiologist  of  any 
eminence  regards  the  spinal  cord  as  capable  of  conscious 
activity.  It  exists  in  the  mesencephalic  centers  in  greater 
complexity,  because  there  is  a  much  greater  complexity 
of  the  afferent  and  efferent  relations;  but  sensation  proper, 
the  consciousness  of  an  impression  or  of  a  movement,  it 
is  conceded  is  not  a  function  of  these  centers.  Sensation, 
memory,  intelligence,  volition,  and  consciousness,  have 
their  seat  in  the  cerebral  hemispheres.  Even  the  doubt 
which  formerly  lingered  in  the  minds  of  some,  whether 
the  hemispheres  were  indispensably  necessary  to  the 
momentary  consciousness  of  tactile  impressions,  is  now 
effectually  dissipated  by  the  fact  that,  if  disease  invades 
the  crura  cerebri,  thereby  practically  detaching  the 
hemispheres  from  the  lower  centers,  there  is  absolutely 
no  consciousness  of  tactile  impressions  in  the  opposite 
side  of  the  body.  Consequently,  we  infer  that  in  the 
mesencephalic  centers  alone  sensory  impressions  are  not 
accompanied  with  consciousness,  but  that  true  sensation 
must  be  a  function  of  higher  centers.  Neither  equilibra- 
tion nor  locomotion  requires  the  aid  of  consciousness,  as 
is  evident  from  the  feats  performed  by  somnambulists. 
Nor  is  consciousness  needed  in  the  movements  expres- 
sive of  emotion,  as  is  manifest  in  watching  the  features 

power,  yet  this  independence  is  only  manifested  when  these  organs  are  separated 
from  each  other;  either  structurally,  by  division,  or  functionally,  by  partial 
suspension  of  activity.  In  their  state  of  perfect  integrity  and  complete  func- 
tional activity  they  are  for  the  most  part  (at  least  in  man)  in  such  subordination 
to  the  cerebrum  that  they  minister  to  its  action,  except  in  so  far  as  they  are 
subservient  to  the  maintenance  of  the  organic  functions,  as  in  the  automatic 
acts  of  breathing  and  swallowing"  (p.  122).  "  That  the  will  should  have  a 
certain  degree  of  control  over  such  movements  is  necessary  in  order  that  they 
may  be  rendered  subservient  to  various  actions  which  are  necessary  for  the  due 
exercise  of  man's  psychical  powers"  (p.  123). 


352  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

of  the  dreaming  infant.  We  may  feign  emotion,  and  we 
may  also  repress  its  manifestation  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent, but  in  a  majority  of  instances  the  real  emotion 
will  exhibit  itself  in  the  features,  despite  all  efforts  to 
conceal  it.  Consequently,  the  co-ordinating  centers  of 
emotion  must  lie  below  the  region  of  volition,  of  ideation, 
and  even  of  consciousness. 

Nor  does  the  fact  that  the  frog  is  capable  of  croaking, 
though  deprived  of  its  hemispheres,  furnish  satisfactory 
proof  that  it  is  conscious  of  the  gentle  strokes  upon  its 
back,  which  strokes  elicit  the  sounds.  The  croaking  is 
caused  by  the  rubbing  of  the  cutaneous  nerves  of  the 
back.  If  the  skin  is  removed,  the  croaking  ceases,  no 
matter  how  gently  nor  how  forcibly  the  stroking  is  done. 
The  action  then  is  reflex,  not  volitional. 

Nor  are  the  corpora  quadrigemina  the  center  of  con- 
scious vision.  The  head  of  an  animal  from  which  the 
cerebral  lobes  have  been  abstracted  is  moved,  it  is  true, 
when  a  bright  light  is  flashed  before  its  eyes.  The  move- 
ments, however,  are  regarded  as  reflex,  not  volitional. 

In  like  manner,  though  a  brainless  animal  starts  at  a 
sharp  sound,  conscious  hearing  is  not  regarded  as  a  func- 
tion of  the  lower  centers.  The  movements,  like  those 
previously  referred  to,  are  considered  automatic,  not  a 
result  of  volition  prompted  by  the  consciousness  of  hav- 
ing heard  a  sound. 

Having  reached  the  conclusion  that  intelligence,  sen- 
sation proper,  memory,  and  volition,  are  not  functions 
of  any  center  lower  than  the  corpora  quadrigemina,  the 
reader  is  prepared  for  the  further  statement  that  the 
cerebellum  is  not  the  seat  of  these  mental  activities. 
The  cerebellum  is  an  essential  part  of  the  mechanism  by 
which  reflex  action  is  produced,  but  is  not  the  seat  of 
intelligence,   of  volition,  of  ideation,  of  memory,  or  of 


MIND    AND    MATTER.  353 

consciousness.  Experiment  has  established  this  almost 
or  quite  beyond  dispute.  If  the  cerebellum  is  removed 
from  a  pigeon,  instead  of  remaining  quiet  as  the  pigeon 
does  from  which  the  hemispheres  have  been  ablated,  it  is 
in  a  constant  state  of  agitation.  It  sees  a  threatened 
danger  and  makes  efforts  to  escape,  but  is  powerless. 
Equilibration  and  locomotion  are  lost.  Sensation,  vo- 
lition, intelligence,  and  memory  remain.  In  numerous 
experiments  made  by  Dr.  Ferrier  upon  birds  and  animals, 
similar  results  were  found  to  ensue;  Viz.,  disordered 
movements  resembling  those  of  intoxication,  but  no  im- 
pairment of  volition,  of  intelligence,  or  of  sensation. 

It  seems,  however,  in  the  case  of  man  at  least,  that 
science  does  not  warrant  the  inference  that  the  cerebel- 
lum is  the  center  of  the  co-ordinated  movements  nec- 
essary to  equilibration  and  locomotion.  Persons  in  whom 
the  cerebellum  is  entirely  wanting,  or  in  whom  it  has  been 
completely  destroyed  by  disease,  have  been  able  to  stand 
and  to  walk,  generally,  however,  with  difficulty  and  in  a 
tottering  manner.  Sensation,  volition,  memory,  sight, 
hearing,  touch,  smell,  intelligence,  will,  remain  unim- 
paired. Locomotion  is  regarded  by  most  physiologists 
as  a  function  of  the  corpora  quadrigemina.  Certainly  the 
above  cases  seem  to  prove  that  if  these  muscular  adjust- 
ments are  ordinarily  functions  of  the  cerebellum,  they 
may  at  least  be  carried  on  independently  of  it.  Perhaps 
the  true  theory  is  that  equilibration  and  locomotion  are 
functions  of  a  conjoint  mechanism;  of  which,  when  one 
part  is  destroyed,  the  remaining  parts  are  capable,  after 
education,  of  fulfilling  the  functions  previously  performed 
by  the  conjoint  mechanism. 

Though  the  question,  What  are  the  functions  of  the 
cerebellum  ?  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  in  human  physi- 
ology, and   one   upon  which   great   diversity  of  opinion 


354  THE  IBM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

exists,  there  is  nevertheless  unanimity  upon  two  points: 
(i)  Volition,  consciousness,  memory,  ideation,  and  intelli- 
gence are  not  among  its  functions;  (2)  Injuries  inflicted 
upon  it  ordinarily  produce  only  transient  effects  upon 
mental  operations,  and  even  from  its  complete  destruction 
ultimate  recovery  is  possible,  its  absence  leaving  no  one 
of  the  faculties  seriously  weakened. 

It  is  conceded,  then,  that  sensation  proper,  volition, 
intelligence,  memory,  judgment,  and  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation,  are  not  functions  of  any  ganglionic  center 
outside  of  the  cerebral  hemispheres.  Are  they  func- 
tions of  the  cerebrum  ? 

The  Cerebrum: — This  consists  of  a  mass  of  white 
substance  covered  by  a  layer  of  gray  matter,  and  is 
in  the  form  of  two  ovoidal  masses  called  hemispheres. 
Their  surface  is  disposed  in  convolutions,  the  extent  of 
each  convolution  being  determined  by  fissures.  At  these 
fissures  the  opposite  edges  of  adjoining  convolutions  lie 
in  contact.  Near  these  fissures  the  gray  substance  is 
more  abundant;  consequently,  the  more  numerous  the 
fissures,  and  the  deeper  they  are,  the  greater  the  quantity 
of  gray  matter.  Neither  these  fissures,  nor  the  convolu- 
tions, are  the  same  in  all  crania.  Still,  certain  fissures 
and  certain  convolutions  are  essential  features.* 

*  The  more  important  fissures  are: — 

1.  The  longitudinal  fissure;  which  separates  the  two  hemispheres,  dividing 
the  brain  into  two  equal  parts. 

2.  The  fissure  of  Sylvius;  which,  beginning  back  of  the  first  temporal  con- 
volution, runs  backwards  and  upwards,  and  is  divided  in  man  into  two  branches, 
one  of  which  is  denominated  the  anterior  branch,  the  other,  the  posterior. 
The  space  between  the  two  branches  forms  the  roof  of  what  is  denominated  the 
Island  of  Keil. 

3.  The  fissure  of  Rolando;  which,  commencing  near  the  median  line  runs 
nearly  to  the  fissure  of  Sylvius. 

4.  The  parietal  fissure;  which,  starting  behind  the  posterior  central  convolu 
tion,  runs  through  the  parietal  portion  of  the  hemisphere. 


MIND    AND    MATTER.  355 

The  cerebral  ganglia,  two  in  number,  are  at  the  base 
of  the  brain.  The  anterior  pair  are  denominated  corpora 
striata,  and  the  posterior  pair,  optic  thalami. 

The  Gray  Matter  of  tJie  HemispJieres: — This  lies  in 
layers  on  the  surface  of  the  convolutions,  and  into  it 
the  nerve-fibers  of  the  white  substance  penetrate.  It 
consists  of  nerve-cells  with  ramifying  fibers.  In  the 
middle  portion  of  the  gray  substance  the  cells  are  larger 
than  on  the  surface  and  are  termed  "  pyramids."  Each 
of  these  pyramids  has  its  base  directed  inwards  towards 
the  white  matter  and  its  apex  pointing  outwards.  The 
nerve-fibers  from  the  white  substance  diminish  in  size  as 
they  enter  the  gray  substance,  and  spread  themselves  in 
horizontal  layers. 

5.  The  prcecental  fissure;  running  parallel  with  the  fissure  of  Rolando,  a  little 
in  front  of  it. 

6.  The  superior  frontal  fissure;  running  nearly  parallel  with  the  great 
longitudinal  fissure,  and  separating  the  first  and  second  frontal  convolutions. 

7.  The  inferior  frontal  fissure ;  surrounding  the  end  of  the  anterior  branch 
of  the  fissure  of  Sylvius. 

The  principal  convolutions  of  the  hemispheres  are: — 

1.  The  first  frontal  convolution;  running  from  near  the  upper  end  of  the 
fissure  of  Rolando,  along  the  longitudinal  fissure  to  the  anterior  extremity  of  the 
frontal  lobe,  where  it  bends  downwards  and  backwards. 

2.  The  second  frontal  convolution;  running  parallel  with  the  preceding. 

3.  The  third  frontal  convolution;  at  the  lower  part  of  the  frontal  lobe  and 
curving  round  the  anterior  branch  of  the  fissure  of  Sylvius. 

4.  The  anterior  central  convolution;  running  outwards  and  forwards  from 
the  great  longitudinal  fissure,  along  the  fissure  of  Rolando. 

5.  The  posterior  central  convolution;  behind  the  fissure  of  Rolando  and 
parallel  with  it. 

6.  The  supra-marginal  convolution;  arching  around  the  upper  end  of  the 
posterior  branch  of  the  fissure  of  Sylvius. 

7.  The  angular  convolution;  following  the  inferior  edge  of  the  pa- 
rietal fissure  to  its  posterior  extremity,  where  it  turns  downwards  and 
forwards. 

8.  First  temporal  convolution. 

9.  Second  temporal  convolution. 

10.  Third  temporal  convolution. 


35G  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

Differences  in  structure  characterize  extended  sections 
of  the  gray  matter.  In  front  of  the  fissure  of  Rolando, 
pyramidal  cells  predominate.  In  the  parietal  and  tem- 
poral lobes,  small  cells  are  more  numerous  than  larger 
ones. 

The  White  Sub ]  stance  of  the  Hemispheres: — This  is 
nerve-fibers.     These  are  of  three  kinds:  — 

(i)  Commissural  fibers.  These  connect  similar  parts 
of  the  two  hemispheres.  The  principal  mass  bears  the 
name  of  corpus  callosum  and  is  a  broad  band  situate  at 
the  bottom  of  the  longitudinal  fissure,  the  individual 
fibers  of  which  spread  out  to  all  the  convolutions  of  the 
frontal,  the  parietal,  and  the  central  lobes.  Next  in  im- 
portance is  the  anterior  commissure,  which  connects  those 
convolutions  of  the  two  hemispheres  which  lie  below  the 
fissure  of  Sylvius.  It  is  through  the  agency  of  these 
commissural  fibers  that  the  two  hemispheres  are  enabled 
to  act  in  unison.  As  long  as  each  hemisphere  is  in  a 
healthful  condition,  and  these  connecting  fibers  are  un- 
impaired, there  is  unity  of  action  in  the  two  associated 
halves. 

(2)  The  fibers  of  association.  These  connect  the  con- 
volutions of  the  same  hemisphere.  Of  these,  some  unite 
adjoining  convolutions;  some,  passing  under  two  or  three 
adjacent  convolutions,  connect  those  somewhat  remote 
from  each  other;  some  run  from  one  side  of  the  hemi- 
sphere to  the  other,  putting  the  most  distant  parts  into 
immediate  communication  with  each  other. 

(3)  The  medullary  fibres.  These  connect  the  hemis- 
pheres with  the  medulla  oblongata,  and  consequently 
with  the  spinal  cord,  and  through  it  with  the  gray  part 
of  the  organism. 

Functions  of  the  Hemispheres: — These,  as  has  been 
shown  negatively,  are  sensation,  volition,  and  ideation, 


MIND    AND    MATTER.  357 

for  removal  of  the  hemispheres  destroys  consciousness, 
voluntary  power,  and  memory,  leaving  an  animal  a 
mere  automaton,  the  movements  which  resemble  those 
prompted  by  conscious  sensation,  intelligent  adaptation, 
and  volitional  control,  being  regarded  as  simply  reflex 
and  having  no  connection  whatever  with  mind,  but  hav- 
ing their  origin  in  ganglia  which  are  capable  of  being 
stimulated  to  unconscious  activity. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  has  been  seen,  the  hemispheres 
are  not  to  be  regarded  as  directly  connected  with  the 
maintenance  of  physical  life.  In  quadrupeds  large  por- 
tions of  them  can  be  removed  without  impairing  the  vital 
functions.  In  fishes,  reptiles,  birds,  and  even  in  some 
quadrupeds,  they  may  be  entirely  destroyed  without  caus- 
ing death.  In  man,  they  may  suffer  extensive  injury 
without  destroying  life.  The  cases  are  numerous  which 
prove  conclusively  that  the  hemispheres  are  not  indis- 
pensable to  a  continuance  of  the  functions  of  animal-life. 

It  being  thus  rendered  more  than  probable  that  the 
cerebrum,  which  is  not  indispensable  to  continued  physi- 
cal life,  is  the  seat  of  intelligence  in  general,  the  reader 
may  enter  upon  an  investigation  of  the  more  direct  evi- 
dence bearing  upon  this  generally  accepted  theory.  This 
will  be  presented  in  the  succeeding  chapter. 


CHAPTER    XX. 

THE  CEREBRUM  THE   ESPECIAL  ORGAN  OF   MIND. 

In  proof  of  this  proposition,  attention  is  called  to  the 
following  considerations: — 

i.  Other  things  being  equal,  the  size  of  the  hemispheres 
invariably  determines  the  degree  of  mental  power.  In 
idiots  the  circumference  of  the  head  above  the  ears  is 
uniformly  small,  sometimes  only  12  or  13  inches.  The 
average  well-developed  head  is  22  inches  in  circumfer- 
ence. The  heads  of  savages  are  smaller  than  those  of 
persons  possessing  average  intelligence  in  civilized  na- 
tions; consequently,  as  we  might  expect,  their  intel- 
lectual powers  are  feebler.  The  brain-capacity  of  the 
negro-race  averages  82  cubic  inches;  that  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon,  100.  The  average  weight  of  the  negro  brain  is 
46.9  ounces;  that  of  the  English  and  German  is  52.  The 
intellectual  vigor  of  each  race,  and  its  success  in  the 
struggle  of  life,  are  commensurate  with  the  size  of  the 
brain  possessed. 

2.  The  greater  the  mental  strength  and  the  more 
numerous  the  faculties  in  active  exercise,  the  larger,  as  a 
rule,  is  the  cerebrum.  Thus,  it  is  more  fully  developed  in 
insects  than  in  worms;  more  fully  in  birds  than  in  rep- 
tiles; more  fully  in  monkeys  than  in  elephants,  in  pro- 
portion to  the  size  of  the  body;  more  fully  in  man  than 
in   any   other  animal.     Indeed,  its  development  in    the 


THE    CEREBRUM.  359 

several  species  of  animals,  and  as  well  also  in  different  in- 
dividuals, is  the  measure  of  mental  power  possessed.  In 
primitive  races  it  was  small.  There  is,  it  is  true,  a  dif- 
ference in  the  quality  of  the  cerebral  matter,  as  well  as 
in  the  quantity.  Still,  whatever  the  quality  may  be,  in 
all  cases  of  marked  difference  in  intellectual  vigor,  there 
is,  as  a  rule,  a  perceptible  difference  in  the  size  of  the 
hemispheres  as  compared  with  the  weight  of  the  animal. 
Each  species,  and  each  individual  in  each  species,  pos- 
sesses more  mental  power  the  larger  the  hemispheres 
are,  other  things  remaining  substantially  unchanged.  In 
animals  possessing  little  intelligence  the  cerebrum  is 
small,  and  its  convolutions  are  few,  if  not  entirely  want- 
ing. The  posterior  lobes  are  almost  peculiar  to  man. 
The  monkey  has  them,  but  they  are  small.  * 

Increased  strength  in  certain  faculties  is  also  well 
known  to  be  accompanied  by  an  unusual  development  of 
certain  sections  of  the  hemispheres.  A  well-developed 
forehead  indicates  the  possession  of  good  reasoning  pow- 
ers. An  unusually  large  development  in  any  definite 
extended  portion  of  the  cerebrum  indicates  the  posses- 
sion of  unusual  faculties  of  a  particular  kind;  and  the  pos- 
session of  unusual  powers  leads  us  to  expect  an  unusual 
development  in  some  portion  of  the  cerebrum. 

3.  If  a  portion  of  the  skull  is  removed,  the  hemispheres 
are    found,  on  examination,  to  be    continually  agitated 

*  Some  animals,  particularly  insects,  have  what  Dr.  Carpenter  denominates 
"unconscious  cerebration."  Ants,  we  are  told,  build  houses,  make  diving 
bells,  bore  galleries,  construct  vaults,  and  erect  bridges.  They  line  their  houses 
with  tapestry,  clean  them,  air  them,  and  close  them  by  ingeniously  constructed 
doors.  They  prepare  ware -rooms,  devise  traps,  hunt,  rob,  and  plunder.  They 
have  social  laws,  a  common  language,  division  of  labor,  and  gradation  of  rank. 
They  recognize  those  belonging  to  the  same  community,  maintain  armies,  go  tc 
battle,  send  out  scouts,  post  sentinels,  carry  off  prisoners,  keep  slaves,  and  tend 
domestic  animals. 


3G0  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

during  the  time  the  mind  is  actively  engaged,  the  agita- 
tion being  proportioned  to  the  degree  of  mental  excite- 
ment. They  are  viewed  as  physical  organs  which  are 
called  into  exercise  during  the  activity  of  the  mind.  Un- 
less this  theory  is  accepted,  it  is  difficult  to  resist  the 
temptation  to  regard  mentality  as  identical  with  physical 
changes,  so  intimate  are  the  relations  subsisting  between 
psychical  and  physical  states.  These  countless  molec- 
ular vibrations,  and  these  numberless  physical  changes 
have  been  viewed  under  three  aspects:  (i)  As  efficient 
agents  in  the  evolution  of  thought;  (2)  As  identical  with 
mental  activities;  (3)  As  instrumental  agents  in  the  pro- 
duction of  ideas,  the  mind,  an  immaterial  force,  being  re- 
garded as  the  true  and  only  efficient  cause.  The  first 
regards  mental  states, — sensations,  perceptions,  ideas,  and 
volitions — as  effects  of  a  definite  series  of  changes  in  a  ma- 
terial substance,  the  changes  originating  in  the  substance 
itself,  as  a  result  of  the  operation  of  purely  physical  forces 
which  are  properties  of  brain-matter.  What  these  sensa- 
tions, perceptions,  and  ideas  really  are,  it  makes  no  effort 
to  determine.  It  contents  itself  with  pronouncing  them 
effects  of  changes  in  matter.  The  second  theory  views 
mental  operations  as  identical  with  these  physical  changes 
and  molecular  vibrations.  Sensation  is  a  change  in  a 
definite  portion  of  brain-tissue.  Volition  is  a  change  in 
the  gray  matter  of  the  cortex.  Thoughts  are  vibrations 
of  matter.  Imaginations  are  vanishing  atoms  wreathed 
into  fantastic  forms.  Conscience,  and  its  commendations 
and  reproaches,  are  states  of  unstable  matter.  Memory 
is  aggregated  particles  of  matter  stored  away  for  future 
use.  The  third  of  the  three  aspects,  under  which  these 
changes  may  be  viewed,  regards  them  as  effects  of 
the  activity  of  mental  force,  the  brain  being  the  organ 
of  mind. 


THE    CEREBRUM.  361 

4.  The  several  faculties  of  the  mind,  and  the  mind  in 
its  totality,  can  be  strengthened  by  judicious  use.  This 
seems  to  carry  with  it  the  inference  that  the  brain,  which 
may  be  strengthened  by  exercise  in  the  same  way  that 
the  muscle  of  the  arm  may  be,  is  in  all  probability  the 
organ  of  the  mind.  What  is  called  "  muscular  strength," 
being  in  fact  strength  of  will,  may  of  course  manifest 
itself  with  increased  power  if  the  muscles  are  repeatedly 
called  into  judicious  exercise,  the  will  thereby  rendering 
them  capable  of  greater  exertion.  Indeed,  not  only  may 
the  will  impart  unwonted  strength  to  the  muscular  system, 
but  its  own  power  may  be  greatly  augmented,  as  subse- 
quent considerations  will  make  apparent.  In  like  man- 
ner, mental  strength,  of  whatever  kind  it  may  be, — voli- 
tional, intellectual,  sensory,  or  inferential, — and  however 
vigorous  it  may  be,  is  dependent,  for  the  power  of  mani- 
festing itself,  upon  the  brain.  Consequently,  faculties 
may  acquire  increased  power  of  manifesting  themselves, 
by  becoming  possessed  of  more  fully  developed  organs; 
and  the  mind,  in  its  totality,  may  become  more  vigorous 
in  its  manifestations,  in  proportion  as  the  entire  brain 
becomes  more  fully  developed  by  judicious  exercise  in 
psychical  operations.  Thus,  an  intelligent  youth  who 
passes  his  life  in  mental  idleness  becomes  a  stupid  old 
man.  A  dull  youth,  if  persistent  in  the  cultivation  of  his 
intellectual  powers,  becomes  the  possessor  of  more  than 
ordinary  mental  vigor.  The  phenomenon  may  be  ex- 
plained by  supposing  that, — as  in  the  case  of  the  muscle 
of  the  arm  which  may  be  strengthened  by  exercise  under 
the  direction  of  the  will, — the  physical  organ  of  the  mind, 
the  brain,  has  been  strengthened  by  judicious  use  under 
the  superintendence  of  mental  agents. 

In  like  manner,  in  the  use  the  intellectual  faculties 
make  of  the  brain   as   their  organ,  we   may  discover  a 


362  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

solution  of  the  admitted  fact  that  they  lose  their  elasticity, 
causing  a  sense  of  mental  weariness,  if  strained  beyond 
their  natural  power,  or  kept  under  tension  for  too  long  a 
time.  The  intellectual  languor  is  probably  simple  weari- 
ness of  a  physical  organ,  which  is  equal  to  only  a  defi- 
nite measure  of  active  exercise.  Sir  Walter  Scott,  in  his 
early  life,  devoted  about  six  hours  daily  to  intellectual 
labors,  and  was  eminently  successful.  After  his  accumu- 
lated misfortunes  he  labored  to  excess  and  became  the 
victim  of  the  brain  disease  which  eventually  caused  his 
death. 

The  intimate  relation  between  mind  and  matter  is  also 
observable  in  the  results  which  are  so  liable  to  ensue  on 
the  sudden  cessation  of  mental  activities  which  have  been 
long  maintained.  The  business  man  who  abandons  em- 
ployment under  the  mistaken  conception  that  idleness 
will  produce  health  and  happiness,  not  infrequently  finds 
himself  the  victim  of  bodily  disease  and  of  mental  infir- 
mities to  which  he  was  previously  a  stranger.  Organs, 
through  disuse,  become  in  measure  weakened,  possibly 
diseased;  and  he  who  had  sufficient  intellectual  vigor  to 
amass  a  fortune,  is  now,  it  may  be,  scarcely  competent 
to  the  task  of  guarding  his  possessions,  though  still 
on  the  sunny  side  of  fifty.  Possibly  he  might  have 
retained  his  strength,  his  intellectual  as  well  as  his 
physical,  if  he  had  continued  the  judicious  use  of  all  his 
organs. 

And  it  is  well  known  that  the  will  aids  very  materially 
in  conquering  diseases,  those  to  which  the  brain  is  subject, 
and  as  well  those  to  which  the  body  is  heir.  A  morbid 
sensitiveness  to  the  approaches  of  death,  or  settled  de- 
spondency in  reference  to  the  state  of  the  health,  invites 
the  attacks  of  disease.  The  mind  affects  the  body,  the 
body  affects  the  mind.     The  communication  takes  place 


THE    CEREBRUM.  363 

through  the  brain,  which  may  therefore  be  regarded  as 
the  organ  of  the  mind. 

The  mind  is  even  capable  of  exerting  an  unconscious 
influence  over  the  body,  and  no  doubt  over  the  brain,  its 
organ  of  communication  with  the  body.  The  man  who, 
on  testimony,  is  led  to  believe  that  a  piece  of  steel  sus- 
pended by  a  string  will  oscillate  when  held  over  certain 
substances  and  remain  at  rest  when  held  over  other  sub- 
stances, will  find  in  all  probability  that  such  is  the  case, 
though  the  movements  in  the  one  case,  and  the  rest  in 
the  other,  can  be  proved  to  be  results  of  an  unconscious 
volition  directing  the  hand.  The  mind,  then,  which  can 
control  the  body  without  being  in  any  degree  aware  of  it, 
can  be  the  unconscious  agent  in  producing  modifications 
in  the  brain  itself,  fitting  it  as  an  organ  precisely  adapted 
to  its  uses.  If  the  billiard  player  who  is  intent  on  driv- 
ing his  ball  to  a  certain  point  on  the  table  inclines  his 
head  unconsciously  in  the  coveted  direction,  and  that 
too  after  the  stroke  is  delivered — seeming  to  imagine  it 
still  possible  for  him  to  give  direction  to  the  ball — surely 
it  requires  no  great  stretch  of  imagination  to  suppose 
that  the  mind  may  be  capable  of  producing  physical 
changes  in  the  brain,  causing  new  particles  to  be  incor- 
porated into  its  structure,  waste  matter  to  be  eliminated, 
new  strength  to  be  imparted,  and  unaccustomed  "trills" 
to  become  easy  through  continued  repetition.  Certainly 
intellectual  powers  may  be  increased,  may  also  be 
diminished,  by  the  way  they  are  employed;  and  it  is  pos- 
sible to  conceive  that  this  may  be  a  simple  result  of  their 
possessing  well-developed  or  poorly  developed  organs. 

5.  During  sleep,  the  mind  though  unconscious  of  the 
existence  of  an  eternal  world  and  even  unconscious  of 
the  fact  that  its  dreams  may  be  occasioned  by  impres- 
sions received  from  without,  is  nevertheless  conscious  of 


3G4  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

changes  in  the  hemispheres  themselves.  The  dreamer 
may  hold  an  extended  controversy  with  an  imaginary 
opponent,  presenting  arguments  which  he  regards  as 
those  of  an  antagonist,  thus  actually  losing  the  sense  of 
personal  identity.  The  reasons  presented  by  the  mind 
are  regarded  as  presented  by  another,  their  authorship 
being  seemingly  unknown.  The  dreamer  is  not  unaware, 
however,  of  the  activity  of  his  mental  faculties.  He  may 
regard  the  arguments  of  his  supposed  antagonist  as  formid- 
able, or  as  weak;  and  may  proceed  to  refute  them,  or  may 
pronounce  them  unworthy  of  an  effort  at  refutation.  From 
first  to  last,  he  is  conscious  of  intellectual  activity;  that  is, 
he  is  conscious  that  changes  of  some  kind  are  taking  place. 
The  mind  and  its  organ  are  in  active  exercise.  The  mind 
may  regard  a  sentence  as  uttered,  which  it  has  delivered 
to  the  organism  to  be  uttered.  It  may  regard  an  antag- 
onist as  answered,  inasmuch  as  the  refutation  has  been 
elaborated  in  the  brain;  though  it  is  rarely  able  to  con- 
ceive that  a  blow  has  been  delivered  by  the  fist  to  a  sup- 
posed enemy,  unless  it  has  been  delivered,  because  the 
muscle  in  the  arm  has  not  been  contracted.  The  organ 
by  which  thought  is  evolved  is  the  brain.  The  organ 
by  which  a  blow  is  delivered  is  the  muscle  of  the  arm. 
When  the  brain  has  undergone  certain  changes,  the  mind 
rests  in  the  satisfaction  of  intellectual  work  done;  when 
the  muscle  of  the  arm  has  contracted  and  delivered  its 
force  the  mind  rests  satisfied.  Each  impulse  must  pro- 
duce changes  in  its  own  appropriate  organ  ere  the  sense 
of  completed  work  ensues. 

The  singular  phenomenon  of  double  consciousness,  to 
which  reference  has  just  been  made,  is  sometimes  ex- 
plained by  assuming  that  the  two  hemispheres  of  the 
brain  are  amusing  themselves,  whiling  away  the  tedious 
hours  of  the  will's  slumbers,  by  engaging  with  each  other 


THE    CEREBRUM.  365 

in  an  intellectual  sparring-match.  The  explanation  does 
not  carry  with  it  the  assumption  that  there  are  two 
minds;  and,  moreover,  is  seemingly  an  inadequate  ex- 
planation, inasmuch  as  large  portions  of  one  hemisphere, 
and  indeed  an  entire  hemisphere,  may  be  removed  with- 
out serious  injury  to  intellectual  activity,  and  without  even 
destroying  the  possibility  of  such  double  consciousness. 
Whatever  may  be  the  proper  solution  of  the  enigma, 
physiologists  concede  that  the  mind  is  a  unit;  indeed,  this 
is  a  conviction  from  which  we  cannot  escape.* 

It  is  also  conceded  that  the  mind,  during  wakeful 
hours,  can  reproduce  the  visions  of  the  preceding  night, 
that  is,  can  reduplicate  the  physical  changes  in  the 
brain — the  process  by  which  the  vision  is  made  to  re- 
appear being  of  course  purely  automatic.  There  may  be 
difficulty  in  distinguishing  such  reproduced  visions  from 
day-dreams;  some  are  even  incapable  of  distinguishing 
them  from  realities,     Indeed,  phantoms  never  before  in 

*  In  profound  sleep,  volition  is  wholly  suspended;  all  other  purely  mental 
operations  may  be  carried  on,  however,  with  entire  regularity.  The  imagina- 
tion may  be  active — perhaps  invariably  is.  Hence,  phantoms  may  succeed  each 
other  with  surprising  rapidity.  Lord  Holland  fell  asleep  while  a  friend  was 
reading  to  him;  he  had  a  succession  of  mental  visions.  On  awaking,  a  de- 
scription of  what  he  had  seen,  and  a  recital  of  the  ideas  that  had  occupied  his 
mind,  required  fifteen  minutes.  He  was  able,  however,  to  repeat  to  his  friend 
the  former  part  of  one  sentence  read,  and  the  latter  part  of  the  next,  the  dream 
having  occurred  in  the  brief  interval. 

No  doubt,  there  are  laws  which  regulate  this  succession  of  images  and  ideas. 
They  are  unknown,  however,  and  seemingly  inscrutable.  The  order  is  not 
determined  by  the  will;  for,  as  Mr.  Darwin  was  the  first  to  prove,  the  will 
is  in  suspension  during  profound  sleep.  True,  persons  turn  in  sleep,  and 
talk  in  sleep,  and  walk  in  sleep;  but  it  should  be  remembered  that  there  are 
different  degrees  of  sleep — every  conceivable  degree,  from  the  most  intense  ner- 
vous excitement,  to  complete  and  total  insensibility.  Certainly,  in  night-mare, 
there  is  an  entire  absence  of  will-power.  The  inability  to  move  is  not  in  con- 
sequence of  disobedience,  on  the  part  of  the  muscles,  to  commands  from  the 
will;  but  in  consequence  of  the  absence  of  a  volition,  ordering  the  muscles  into 


3GG  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

the  imagination  present  themselves  to  some  minds,  even 
when  awake,  with  such  vividness  that  they  are  mistaken 
for  realities.  They  see  ghosts,  it  is  true — unsubstantial 
creations  of  their  own  active  imaginations,  which  visions 
have  to  them  the  full  force  of  reality,  because  the  activ- 
ities of  the  brain  are  so  purely  automatic  as  to  escape 
notice.  The  physical  organ,  under  the  superintendence 
of  mental  force,  is  in  a  state  of  intense  activity  without 
the  knowledge  of  the  ego.  It  is  perhaps  possible  in  this 
way  to  explain  the  visions  of  Swedenborg.  If  he  has 
deceived  others,  it  is  most  probably  simply  because  he 
deceived  himself.  He  was  no  doubt  perfectly  sincere — 
his  brain  was  presenting  pictures  fashioned  from  mate- 
rials furnished  it,  and  presenting  them  without  his  being 
aware  of  it.  Deceptive  appearances  which  are  not  mis- 
taken for  realities  are  very  common;  certainly,  then,  the 
possibility  of  their  being  viewed  as  real  visions,  and  not 
as  mental  pictures  having  no  objective  reality,  is  entirely 
conceivable;  indeed,  it  is  demonstrable  that  they  may  be 
so  regarded.  The  visions  of  the  "biologized"  subject 
have  for  him  all  the  force  of  realities. 

action.  In  such  cases,  and,  according  to  physiologists,  in  all  sound  sleep,  there 
is  no  voluntary  exertion,  either  muscular  or  intellectual,  though  all  other  mental 
faculties  may  be  in  active  exercise.  The  activity  of  the  mind  in  sleep  (as  when 
one  solves  a  mathematical  problem  which  he  could  not  solve  in  his  waking  hours) 
is  to  be  regarded  as  purely  automatic,  being  similar  to  that  activity  which  goes 
on  below  consciousness,  when,  as  often  happens,  after  becoming  confused  with  a 
multiplicity  of  unarranged  facts  and  abandoning  the  consideration  of  the  perplex- 
ing subject,  the  mind  unconsciously  arranges  the  confused  materials  in  such  perfect 
order — assigning  each  fact  its  appropriate  place,  and  each  argument  its  own 
niche — that,  on  re-examining  the  subject,  clearness  prevails  where  previously  ob- 
scurity clouded  everything;  or,  being  similar  to  the  unconscious  activity  which 
often  takes  place,  when,  after  vainly  endeavoring  to  recollect  a  fact  or  a  proper 
name,  we  turn  the  conscious  activities  of  the  mind  into  other  channels  and  pre- 
sently are  surprised  on  finding  the  forgotten  fact  or  the  lost  name  rudely 
thrust  upon  our  consciousness,  the  obedient  automatic  machinery  seeming  to 
say,  "There  is  what  you  ordered  me  to  search  for." 


THE    CEREBRUM.  3G7 

6.  In  man,  as  in  lower  animals,  the  usual  result  of  in- 
jury to  the  hemispheres,  as  also  of  electrical  stimulation, 
is  disturbance  more  or  less  marked  to  one  or  more  of  the 
mental  faculties.  Of  some  of  these  faculties  the  portion 
of  the  cerebrum  which  may  be  regarded  as  their  special 
organ  has  been  determined  with  considerable  accuracy. 
In  reference  to  others,  as  memory,  reason,  and  judgment 
— endowments  mainly  concerned  in  intelligence — it  is 
possible  to  frame  an  argument  which  renders  it  almost 
certain  that  these  also  have  definite  sections  of  the  hemi- 
spheres as  their  organs. 

(a)  Sensation  has  its  own  organs,  which  are  situate 
in  the  cerebrum.  If  the  angular  gyrus  receives  electrical 
stimulation  of  a  certain  degree  of  intensity,  for  a  proper 
length  of  time,  the  eye-balls  roll.  Destruction  of  this 
portion  of  the  brain  in  one  hemisphere  causes  blindness 
of  the  eye  of  the  opposite  side.  Still,  if  the  angular  gyrus 
of  the  remaining  hemisphere  is  uninjured,  the  loss  of 
vision  is  not  permanent,  the  uninjured  organ  acquiring 
in  time  the  power  of  doing  double  duty.  If  the  angular 
gyrus  in  each  hemisphere  is  destroyed,  permanent  blind- 
ness ensues. 

Irritation  of  the  first  temporal  convolution  in  one 
hemisphere  causes  a  sudden  movement  of  the  ear,  resem- 
bling the  start  of  surprise  which  accompanies  an  unex- 
pected loud  sound.  Destruction  of  a  certain  part  of  this 
convolution  results  in  partial  deafness  in  one  ear.  De- 
struction of  the  same  portion  of  the  brain  in  each  hemi- 
sphere produces  complete  and  permanent  deafness. 

Electrical  stimulation  of  the  subiculum  excites  the 
sense  of  smell,  which  is,  of  course,  in  such  cases  purely 
subjective.  It  also  excites  the  sense  of  taste.  To  deter- 
mine the  precise  location  of  each  of  these  organs  is,  how- 
ever,   impossible,    the    seat    of  each   being   beneath  the 


3G8  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

convolutions;  consequently,  accurate  differentiation  is 
impracticable.  As  in  the  case  of  sight  and  hearing,  so 
in  the  case  of  smell  and  taste,  injury  to  this  portion  of 
the  brain  in  one  hemisphere  seriously  impairs  the  func- 
tions of  these  organs;  complete  destruction  on  each  side 
entirely  destroys  the  sense  of  smell  and  the  sense  of 
taste.  It  is  an  established  fact  that  blows  inflicted  upon 
the  skull,  over  the  subiculum,  sometimes  produce  tem- 
porary or  permanent  loss  of  these  senses. 

The  removal  or  destruction  of  the  parietal  lobes  abol- 
ishes the  desire  for  food.  Animals  thus  mutilated  die  of 
starvation  in  the  midst  of  plenty. 

Injury  to  the  hippocampal  region  in  one  hemisphere 
impairs  tactile  sensation  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  body. 
The  paralysis  is  not  a  loss  of  the  power  to  will  move- 
ments, nor  a  loss  of  the  power  to  execute  the  commands 
of  the  will  in  reference  to  the  muscles  of  the  affected  side, 
but  simply  the  loss  of  tactile  sensation.  The  power  to 
move  remains,  though  the  loss  of  sensory  impressions  is 
complete,  and  consequently  there  can  be  no  conscious- 
ness of  muscular  contraction.  Paralysis  proper  results 
from  the  injury  of  a  different  part  of  the  brain.  Still, 
without  tactile  sensation,  the  limbs  become  motionless, 
because  no  sensory  impressions  are  conveyed  to  the 
brain  over  the  afferent  nerves,  and  consequently  no 
orders  for  movement  emanate  from  the  will  over  the 
efferent  nerves;  or,  if  in  consequence  of  vision  an  order 
does  emanate,  it  is  carried  out  with  difficulty  and  only 
under  the  direct  guidance  of  the  eye.  None  of  these 
movements  rise  into  the  region  of  consciousness. 

Cerebral  hemianesthesia,  which  may  be  produced  by 
an  injury  in  the  hippocampal  region  of  one  hemisphere, 
and  which  is  a  complete  loss  of  tactile  sensation,  the 
power  of  volitional  movement  remaining  nearly  or  quite 


THE    CEREBRUM.  369 

unimpaired,  may  be  regarded,  therefore,  as  furnishing-  con- 
clusive evidence  that  the  sense  of  touch  has  its  organ 
in  the  cerebrum.  An  injury  to  a  certain  portion  of  the 
brain,  or  to  the  afferent  nerves  at  their  entrance  into 
this  region,  causes  the  loss  of  both  tactile  sensation  and 
of  the  consciousness  of  muscular  contraction  on  the 
opposite  side  of  the  body.  An  injury  to  this  portion  of 
the  brain  in  both  hemispheres  produces  these  results  on 
both  sides  of  the  body. 

{U)  The  center  of  volitions  for  movements  of  different 
parts  of  the  body  is  also  in  the  cerebrum,  will-power  of 
this  kind  being  thus  proved  to  have  its  own  physical 
organ.  Injury  to  a  definite  section  of  the  frontal  con- 
volution in  one  hemisphere  results  in  hemiplegia,  or 
paralysis  of  one  side,  the  opposite.  Motality  is  lost  on 
this  side;  but  sensibility  remains  unimpaired.  An  injury 
to  both  sides  causes  paralysis  of  both  sides.  Sensibility 
continues,  and  the  muscles,  for  example  those  of  the 
limbs,  may  be  in  as  healthy  a  condition  as  usual,  and 
intrinsically  as  capable  of  movement  as  ever,  and  as 
capable  of  reporting  their  movements,  but  they  are 
motionless  and  powerless  simply  because  the  will  has  no 
organ  by  which  to  communicate  orders  to  them.  As 
tactile  sensation  and  the  consciousness  of  muscular 
movement  continue,  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  affer- 
ent nerves  cannot  convey  volitional  impulses;  or  that 
these  afferent  nerves,  which  still  convey  impressions  to 
the  brain  (which  impressions  are  reported  to  the  ego), 
have  no  connection  with  the  volitional  center  of  muscular 
movements; — both  which,  physiologists  regard  as  estab- 
lished facts. 

Those  suffering  from  paralysis  are  sometimes  con- 
scious of  expending  much  energy  in  the  vain  attempt  to 
move  the  paralyzed  member.     Consciousness  of  effort  is 


370  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

not  to  be  regarded,  for  this  reason,  as  independent  of 
muscular  exertion;  for,  though  the  paralyzed  limb 
remains  unmoved,  movements  occur,  the  unparalyzed 
limb  being  sometimes  violently  moved;  and  even  in  cases 
which  seem  most  clearly  to  prove  that  consciousness  of 
effort  may  exist  though  no  muscular  contraction  has 
occurred,  there  will  be  found  to  have  been  laborious  con- 
traction of  the  respiratory  muscles,  if  of  no  others.  Con- 
sequently, the  conclusion  now  accepted  by  most  physiol- 
ogists is  that  in  all  cases  of  consciousness  of  exertion  or 
a  sense  of  weariness,  there  have  been  changes  in  some 
physical  organ.  Hence  we  infer  that  mental  weariness 
is  a  consequence  of  the  weariness  of  the  mind's  organ, 
the  brain. 

This  sense  of  weariness,  whatever  organ  may  produce 
it,  is  dependent  upon  impressions  communicated  to  the 
conscious  ego  through  afferent  nerves.  If  these  are 
destroyed  all  sense  of  exertion  is  obliterated.  The 
volitional  impulse  and  the  impression  of  having  exerted 
muscular  power  do  not  travel  along  the  same  nerves. 
There  is,  as  Dr.  Ferrier  asserts,  u  No  physiological  or 
pathological  evidence  in  support  of  the  theory  that  the 
motor  [efferent]  nerves  are  also  the  path  of  transmission 
of  the  impressions  generated  by  muscular  contraction." 
Consequently,  electrical  stimulation  at  the  ends  of  affer- 
ent nerves,  in  the  case  of  a  person  who  has  lost  a  hand, 
causes  him  to  imagine  he  has  moved  the  fingers  of  the 
lost  member;  but  electrical  irritation  of  the  efferent 
nerves  produces  no  such  result.  In  the  former  case,  he 
receives  an  impression  similar  to  that  which  memory 
associates  with  the  movement  of  the  fingers,  the  stimu- 
lation of  afferent  nerves  which  once  extended  to  the 
fingers  actually  reviving  sensations  stored  away  in  the 
memory.     Some  persons  who  have  suffered  the  amputa- 


THE    CEREBRUM.  371 

tion  of  an  arm  are  capable  of  willing  movements  in  the 
lost  hand,  and  of  executing  them  with  satisfaction  to 
themselves,  closing  it,  opening  it,  pointing  with  the 
index  finger.  Possibly  the  pain  which  others  feel  in 
the  amputated  member  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that 
volitions  ordering  movements  in  the  imaginary  hand 
fail  in  securing  satisfaction;  or,  as  previously  inti- 
mated, to  the  fact  that  the  afferent  nerves  are  in  a 
cramped  condition  in  the  "stump,"  and  so  report  to 
the  sensorium. 

But  whether  sensation  is  restricted  to  an  impression 
conveyed  from  the  epidermis,  as  some  maintain;  or  may 
also  be  produced  by  the  revival  in  idea  of  an  impression 
previously  received, — it  is  an  invariable  consequent  of 
an  impression  transmitted  to  the  mind  over  the  afferent 
or  sensory  nerves.  This,  however,  is  not  a  transmission 
to  the  centers  first  concerned  in  the  volitional  impulse, 
nor  indeed  to  any  efferent  center,  but  to  a  sensory  center. 
Still  the  mind,  which  originated  the  order  of  the  will,  re- 
ceives the  impression  in  reference  to  its  execution.  This 
seems  to  render  it  probable  that  the  mind  is  a  something, 
which,  whether  material  or  immaterial,  is  distinct  from  the 
brain,  being  an  efficient  cause,  of  which  the  cerebrum  in 
its  totality  is  an  organ. 

The  differentiated  centers  of  movement,  as  they  exist 
in  the  gray  superficial  matter  of  the  hemispheres,  origin- 
ate only  volitions  and  never  receive  impressions  from  the 
periphery.  The  afferent  centers,  which  are  distinct  from 
the  efferent  centers,  receive  only  differentiated  sensory 
impressions,  and  are  not  the  recipients  of  commands 
from  the  will.  Destruction  of  the  former  leaves  the 
victim  powerless  in  the  use  of  some  parts  of  the  body, 
except  so  fa'r  as  he  may  direct  and  guide  the  paralyzed 
member  by  the  eye,   though   tactile   sensation   and  the 


372  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

inherent  power  of  muscular  contraction  remain  unim- 
paired. Destruction  of  the  latter  leaves  him  without  the 
consciousness  of  muscular  movement  in  the  affected 
member,  except  so  far  as  it  may  be  received  through 
vision,  though  will-force  adequate  to  order  the  move- 
ment, and  as  well  the  power  of  executing  the  order, 
remain  intact. 

The  electrization  of  the  cortex  of  a  particular  por- 
tion of  the  frontal  convolution  of  a  monkey  causes  him 
to  assume  an  attitude  of  fixed  attention.  Its  removal 
leaves  him  without  the  faculty  of  attentive  observation. 
Though  not  deprived  of  intelligence,  listlessness  charac- 
terizes his  movements,  accompanied  with  loss  of  interest 
in  everything  save  passing  impressions.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  frontal  lobes  in  man  may  suffer  extensive  injury 
without  producing  any  serious  consequences,  though  they 
are  certainly  connected  with  efferent  ganglia,  nerves 
which  radiate  from  the  corpus  striatum  having  their 
cortical  distribution  in  these  regions. 

Basal  Ganglia: — At  the  base  of  the  cerebrum  are  two 
ganglia,  the  optic  thalami  and  the  corpora  striata. 
These  are  masses  of  fibers,  centers  of  convergence;  the 
former,  of  afferent  nerves;  the  latter,  of  efferent  nerves. 
The  total  destruction  of  the  optic  thalami  annihilates 
sensation, — touch,  sight,  hearing,  smell,  taste — though 
will-power  remains  unimpaired.  Total  destruction  of  the 
corpora  striata  abolishes  the  power  of  voluntary  move- 
ment, though  sensation  continues.  In  man,  there  is  but 
little  difference  between  destruction  of  the  efferent 
centers  at  the  cortex  and  destruction  of  the  corpora 
striata,  except  that,  in  the  latter  case,  the  effect  is 
produced  by  one  stroke  in  a  limited  area,  while  at  the 
cortex  the  injury,  to  produce  the  same  effects,  must  needs 
extend  over  a  considerable  area. 


THE    CEREBRUM.  373 

The  corpora  striata  are  the  center  in  which  habitual 
movement  becomes  organized.  They  are  not  the  center  of 
true  conscious  activity;  but,  as  a  result  of  education,  they 
are  capable  of  yielding  to  impressions  whose  origin  is  be- 
low the  region  of  consciousness.  A  consciousness  of  im- 
pressions must  precede  every  act  strictly  volitional;  still, 
by  frequent  repetition,  an  act  may  become  so  easy  as  to  fol- 
low impressions  of  which  there  is  no  conscious  knowledge. 
Possibly,  in  the  case  of  acts  performed  from  habit,  as  in 
measure  is  true  in  the  case  of  a  well-trained  public 
speaker,  impressions  may  pass  directly  to  the  corpora 
striata  below  the  region  of  consciousness.  This  may  be 
true  so  far  at  least  as  the  succession  of  ideas  and  the 
choice  of  words  are  conceived.  It  may  also  be  true  in  the 
case  of  the  dog  whose  powers  of  locomotion,  possibly 
because  running  has  become  a  habit,  are  not  impaired  by 
destruction  of  the  efferent  centers  at  the  cortex.  He  runs 
automatically.  Some  regard  it  as  doubtful  whether  in 
man  habitual  actions  can  become  so  entirely  automatic 
as  to  be  below  consciousness,  having  no  connection 
whatever  with  the  volitional  centers  at  the  cortex. 
The  questions  pertaining  to  the  automatic  activity  of  the 
cerebrum  will  come  under  consideration  in  a  succeeding 
chapter.  For  the  present,  the  reader  may  safely  adhere  to 
the  accepted  theory  that  even  if  the  optic  thalami  and 
the  corpora  striata  in  man  are  not  sufficient  to  execute 
habitual  actions  they  nevertheless  do  unquestionably 
relieve  the  cortical  centers  of  activity  to  no  inconsider- 
able extent.  Though  in  mechanical  and  in  intellectual 
activities  requiring  careful  discrimination  the  convolu- 
tions of  almost  the  entire  cerebrum  may  be  called  into 
play,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  in  acts  which  have  be- 
come easy  through  frequent  repetition  the  basal  ganglia 
perform   the    greater    part   of  the   work,  leaving  higher 


374  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

centers  free  to  employ  themselves  along  other  lines  of 
thought. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  mental  faculties  more 
directly  concerned  in  exhibitions  of  intelligence,  viz., 
memory,  reason,  and  judgment,  we  find,  as  in  the  case 
of  conscious  sensation  and  volition,  that  they  have  their 
seat  in  the  cerebrum.  Memory,  without  which  articulate 
speech  would  be  impossible,  the  empty  present  being 
hopelessly  dissevered  from  the  pregnant  past,  leaving 
very  slender  foundations  on  which  to  base  a  process  of" 
reasoning,  is  the  most  essential  of  the  faculties  upon 
which  intelligent  acts  are  dependent,  and  is  regarded  by 
physiologists  as  having  its  seat  in  the  cerebrum.  Its 
nature  will  come  under  discussion  in  a  chapter  following. 

Reason,  the  ability  to  place  a  proper  estimate  on  the 
various  impressions  received  from  ten  thousand  sources 
and  to  trace  each  effect  to  its  proper  cause,  preventing 
us  from  assuming  the  existence  of  causes  which  have  no 
efficiency,  or  from  imagining  that  effects  may  flow  from 
causes  in  which  they  are  not  contained,  is  not  to  be 
confounded  with  the  simple  power  of  perception  and  is 
unquestionably  a  function  of  the  hemispheres.  Judgment, 
a  faculty  which  calls  into  requisition  both  memory  and 
reason  in  order  to  supply  itself  with  the  materials  upon 
which  to  base  a  decision,  has  its  seat  in  the  cerebrum, 
whether  it  is  regarded  as  a  separate  faculty  or  as  a  result 
of  adjusted  relations  between  other  faculties. 

That  these  several  manifestations  of  intelligence  have 
the  cerebrum  as  their  organ  is  sufficiently  evident,  it  is 
believed,  from  the  fact  that  they  have  their  origin  in  a 
sensation  or  sensations,  and  terminate  in  a  volition,  or  in 
a  series  of  volitions.  The  materials  which  they  elaborate 
come  to  them  from  the  senses,  and  after  the  elaboration 
is  completed,  an  act  of  will  is  the  result.     In  the  case  of 


THE    CEREBRUM.  375 

memory,  this  volition  is  a  determination  to  retain  facts 
deemed  worthy  of  preservation,  without  which  decision 
they  may  prove  as  transitory  as  the  dissolving  cloud,  but 
in  obedience  to  which  they  are  stored  away  in  receptacles 
for  future  use.  In  the  case  of  reason,  it  is  a  volitional 
impulse,  prompting  to  the  acceptance  of  phenomena  as 
having  value  sufficient  and  causal  potency  adequate  to 
the  establishment  of  a  definite  conclusion  which  the 
will  may  regard  as  irreversible.  In  the  case  of  judgment, 
it  is  a  decision  that  of  the  many  agencies  which  might 
prove  instrumental  in  bringing  about  coveted  results,  a 
certain  agency,  or  combination  of  agencies,  is  best 
adapted  to  that  end;  accordingly,  the  will  proceeds 
to  issue  an  order  for  the  employment  of  these  in- 
strumentalities. 

As  the  issue,  in  the  case  of  each  of  these  faculties,  is 
a  volition,  so  also  is  sensation  the  source  through  which 
the  materials  necessary  to  their  activity  are  supplied. 
Judgment,  as  is  evident,  requires  the  existence  of  reason 
and  memory.  Reason  must  of  course  receive  impressions, 
either  directly  through  the  senses  or  from  the  memory, 
ere  it  can  appreciate  their  nature  and  refer  them  to  ade- 
quate causes.  Memory  can  neither  store  away  nor  retain 
anything  else  than  impressions. 

This  chapter  may  be  appropriately  closed  with  an 
enumeration  of  the  more  important  conclusions  reached: 

i.  The  mind  is  an  indivisible  unity. 

2.  It  has  its  seat  in  the  brain  and  is  not  equally  diffused 
throughout  the  body. 

3.  The  brain  is  the  organ  of  the  mind. 

4.  There  is  a  broad  distinction  between  the  afferent 
and  the  efferent  nerves. 

5.  Severance  of  the  spinal  cord  leaves  the  parts  below 
the  injury  utterly  powerless. 


376  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

6.  The  medulla  oblongata  is  a  complex  center  of 
reflex  co-ordination. 

7.  The  mesencephalon  and  the  cerebellum  are  co- 
ordinating centers  of  the  activities  connected  with  the 
maintenance  of  animal-life. 

8.  Removal  of  the  hemispheres  destroys  the  power 
of  volitional  movements;  destroys  memory,  conscious 
sensation,  ideation,  intelligence,  and  the  instinct  of  self- 
preservation. 

9.  The  cerebrum  is  the  seat  of  intelligence,  volition, 
memory,  reason,  and  judgment. 

10.  Volition,  so  far  as  physiology  enables  us  to  de- 
termine, has  its  origin  in  the  gray  substance  of  the 
cerebrum. 

11.  The  cerebral  hemispheres  are  the  especial  organ  of 
the  mind. 

12.  It  is  highly  probable  that  definite  sections  of  the 
brain  are  especially  concerned  in  certain  muscular  move- 
ments and  in  certain  intellectual  activities. 

13.  The  organs  of  sensation — touch,  sight,  hearing, 
taste,  and  smell — are  localized  in  the  cerebrum. 

14.  The  power  of  willing,  especially  of  willing  muscu- 
lar movements,  and  most  probably  of  willing  to  retain 
ideas  under  the  light  of  reason  till  a  conclusion  is  reached, 
is  localized  in  certain  sections  of  the  gray  matter  of  the 
cerebrum. 

15.  The  optic  thalami  are  centers  of  convergence  of 
sensory  fibers;  and  consequently  their  destruction  anni- 
hilates all  sensation  and  destroys  consciousness. 

16.  The  corpora  striata  are  the  center  in  which  habit- 
ual movements  become  organized. 

17.  In  the  absence  of  the  hemispheres,  the  lower  cen- 
ters are  incapable  of  originating  any  movements,  except 
those  which  are  purely  reflex. 


THE    CEREBRUM.  377 

18.  These  lower  ganglia  are  centers  of  immediate 
responsive  actions;  and  of  these  only;  self-conditioned 
activity  being  a  function  of  the  hemispheres,  and  of  these 
alone. 

19.  The  exercise  of  memory,  reason,  and  judgment  is 
conditioned  upon  materials  furnished  by  sensory  impres- 
sions, except  so  far  as  certain  categories  of  thought  are 
concerned. 

20.  The  entire  absence  of  the  cerebellum  leaves  all 
mental  processes  unimpaired. 


CHAPTER   XXI. 

MOLECULAR  VIBRATIONS   IN  THE  BRAIN. 

MENTAL  activities  are  not  identical  with  molecular 
vibrations  in  the  brain,  nor  are  they  a  simple  result  of 
such  vibrations. 

In  support  of  this  proposition  the  following  considera- 
tions are  presented: — 

I.  The  concurrent  testimony  of  eminent  physiologists. 
Dr.  J.  C.  Dalton  says, 

11  The  intermediate  process  between  the  sensation  and  the  volition  may  be 
short  and  simple;  or  it  may  be  long  and  complicated,  involving  the  combined 
suggestion  of  many  successive  ideas.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  in  either  case, 
it  is  accompanied  by  actions  of  some  kind  in  the  gray  substance  of  the  cerebral 
hemispheres.  But  the  nature  of  the  nervous  process  accompanying  mental 
action  is  unknown." — Human  Physiology,  p.  426. 

If  the  "  nervous  process,"  whatever  its  unknown  char- 
acter may  be,  only  accompanies  "  mental  action,"  it  is  not, 
in  the  opinion  of  this  author,  identical  with  intellectual 
activity;  and  if  the  nature  of  this  "  nervous  process  " 
is  unknown,  we  are  not  authorized  in  asserting  that  it  is 
11  molecular  vibration  "  of  which  thought  is  a  result. 
Dr.  David  Ferrier  affirms: — 

"That  the  brain  is  the  organ  of  the  mind,  and  that  mental  operations  are 
possible  only  in  and  through  the  brain,  is  now  so  thoroughly  well  established 
and  recognized  that  we  may  without  further  question  start  from  this  as  an 
ultimate  fact." 

"  r.ut  how  it  is  that  molecular  changes  in  the  brain-cells  coincide  with  modifi- 
cations of  consciousness;  how,  for  instance,  the  vibrations  of  light  falling  on  the 


MOLECULAR     VIBRATIONS    IN    THE    BRAIN.  37 d 

retina  excite  the  modification  of  consciousness  termed  a  visual  sensation,  is  a 
problem  which  cannot  be  solved.  We  may  succeed  in  determining  the  exact 
nature  of  the  molecular  changes  which  occur  in  the  brain-cells  when  a  sensation 
is  experienced,  but  this  will  not  bring  us  one  whit  nearer  the  explanation  of  the 
ultimate  nature  of  that  which  constitutes  the  sensation.  One  is  objective  and  the 
other  subjective,  and  neither  can  be  expressed  in  terms  of  the  other.  We  can- 
not say  that  they  are  identical,  or  even  that  the  one  passes  into  the  other. ' ' — 
Functions  of  the  Brain,  p.  280-281. 

If,  as  is  here  affirmed,  the  brain  is  the  organ  of  the 
mind,  then  it  is  fair,  no  doubt,  to  assert  that  mind  exists 
as  an  entity  which  is  not  identical  with  brain,  nor  with 
the  molecular  vibrations  of  brain-tissue;  and  equally 
legitimate  to  declare  that  mind  is  not  a  product  of  physi- 
cal changes.  An  agent  cannot  be  identical  with  him 
in  whose  service  he  is  engaged;  consequently,  brain  can- 
not be  the  agent  of  mind  and  at  the  same  time  identi- 
cal with  mind.  Again,  if  brain  is  the  agent  of  mind, 
then  mind  cannot  be  a  product  of  brain,  for  that 
would  be  to  suppose  that  an  agent  creates,  or  at  least 
occasions,  the  existence  of  him  into  whose  service  he 
enters;  but  reason  clearly  asserts  that  an  agent  cannot 
exist,  as  an  agent,  antecedent  to  the  existence  of  him 
whom  he  serves;  and  though  he  who  employs  agents  can 
create  them,  or  at  least  can  fashion  them  to  his  liking  and 
tutor  them  to  obey  his  mandates,  or  dismiss  them 
from  his  service, — it  is  a  gross  perversion  of  ideas  to  assert, 
or  even  to  imagine,  that  an  agent  creates,  or  even  occa- 
sions the  existence  of  him  who  employs  such  service. 
Consequently,  if  mind  is  a  result  of  molecular  vibrations 
in  the  brain,  physiologists,  instead  of  recognizing  "the 
brain  as  an  organ  of  the  mind,"  ought  to  have  been  able 
to  recognize  mind  as  an  agent  or  organ  of  the  brain,  and 
should  have  expressed  themselves  in  language  fitted  to 
convey  this  idea. 

It  is  therefore  legitimate  to  assert,  that  as  physiolo- 


380 


THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 


gists  concur  in  regarding  it  as  a  "  thoroughly  well  estab- 
lished fact  that  the  brain  is  the  organ  of  the  mind,"  their 
united  testimony  favors  the  conclusion  that  mind  is 
neither  matter,  nor  a  product  of  matter;  that  intellectual 
force  is  not  identical  with  brain-substance,  nor  capable 
of  being  produced  by  its  transmutations  or  by  its  molecu- 
lar vibrations.  They  do  not  mean  to  convey  the  impres- 
sion that  mind  is  identical  with  its  organ;  nor  that  it  is 
a  succession  of  "  trills  "  in  its  own  organ. 
Dr.  W.  B.  Carpenter  affirms:— 

"  It  is  now  generally  admitted  that  we  neither  know  nor  can  know,  anything 
of  matter,  save  through  the  medium  of  the  impressions  it  makes  on  our  senses- 
and  these  impressions  are  only  derived  from  the  forces  of  which  matter  is  the 
vehicle.  ...  In  fact,  instead  of  matter  (as  some  affirm)  being  the  object 
of  our  immediate  cognizance,  and  the  laws  of  matter  our  most  certain  form 
of  knowledge,  there  seems  valid  ground  for  the  assertion  that  our  notion  of 
matter  is  a  conception  of  the  intellect,  force  being  that  externality  of  which 
we  have  the  most  direct -perhaps  even  the  only  direct-cognizance. 
Mind,  like  force,  is  essentially  active,  all  its  states  are  states  of  change-  and 
of  these  changes  we  become  directly  or  immediately  conscious  by  our'  own 

experience Now  nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  the  primary 

form  of  mental  activity, -sensational  consciousness-is  excited  through  physi- 
ological instrumentality.  ...  In  what  way  the  physical  change  .is 
translated  into  psychical  change  ...  we  know  nothing  whatever 
There  is  just  the  same  evidence  of  what  has  been  termed  correlation,  between 
nerve-force  and  that  primary  state  of  mental  activity  which  we  call  sensation 
that  there  is  between  light  and  nerve-force: -each  antecedent,  when  the  physi- 
ological mechanism  is  in  working  order  being  invariably  folio  wed  by  its  cor- 
responding consequent.  .  .  .  Each  kind  of  mental  activity-sensational 
instinctive,  emotional,  ideational,  and  volitional-may  express  itself  in  bodily 
movement;  and  it  is  clear  that  every  such  movement  is  called  forth  by  an  active 
state  of  a  certain  part  of  the  brain,  which  excites  a  corresponding  activity  in  the 
motor  nerves  issuing  from  it,  whereby  particular  muscles  are  called  into  con- 
traction. No  physiologist  can  doubt  that  the  mechanical  force  exerted  by  the 
muscles  is  the  expression  of  certain  chemical  changes  which  take  place  between 
their  own  substance  and  the  oxygenized  blood  that  circulates  through  them-  or 
that  the  nerve-force  which  calls  forth  these  changes,  is  intimately  related  to 
electricity  and  other  physical  forces.  .  .  .  That  mental  antecedents  call 
forth  physical  consequents,  is  just  as  certain  as  that  physical  antecedents  can 
call  forth  mental  consequents;   and  thus  the  correlation   between    mind-force 


MOLECULAR     VIBRATLONS   IN    THE    BRAIN.  381 

and  nerve-force  is  shown  to  be  complete  both  ways,  each  being  able  to  excite 
the  other.  ...  It  is  obvious  that  the  view  here  taken  does  not  in  the  least 
militate  against  the  idea,  that  mind  may  have  an  existence  altogether  indepen- 
dent of  the  body  which  serves  as  its  instrument.  All  which  has  been  contended 
for  is,  that  the  connection  between  mind  and  body  is  such,  that  the  actions  of 
each  have,  in  this  present  state  of  existence  (which  is  all  of  which  science  can 
legitimately  take  cognizance),  a  definite  causal  relation  to  those  of  the  other;  so 
that  the  actions  of  our  minds,  in  so  far  as  they  are  carried  on  without  interfer- 
ence from  our  will,  may  be  considered  as  •  functions  of  the  brain. '  On  the 
other  hand,  in  the  control  which  the  will  can  exert  over  the  direction  of  the 
thoughts,  and  over  the  motive  force  exerted  by  the  feelings,  we  have  the  evi- 
dence of  a  new  and  independent  power,  which  may  either  oppose  or  concur 
with  the  automatic  tendencies,  and  which,  according  as  it  is  habitually  exerted, 
tends  to  render  the  ego  a  free  agent.  .  .  .  Material  conditions,  in  fact, 
merely  furnish  the  fuel  and  the  mechanism :  it  is  force  or  power  that  does  the 
work." — Mental  Physiology,  pp.  II,  12,  13,  14,  26,  27,  694. 

Even  Prof.  Alexander  Bain,  who,  with  Tyndall,  Hux- 
ley, Spencer,  and  Haeckel,  may  be  regarded  as  a  special 
champion  of  modern  materialism,  admits: — 

"  The  inanimate  and  the  animate  are  not  so  different  as  body  and  mind. 
.  .  .  Extension  is  but  the  first  of  a  long  series  of  properties  all  present  in 
matter,  all  absent  in  mind.  Inertia  cannot  belong  to  a  pleasure,  a  pain,  an 
idea,  as  experienced  in  the  consciousness:  it  can  only  belong  to  the  physical 
accompaniment  of  mind — the  overt  acts  of  volition,  and  the  manifestations  of 
feeling.  Inertia  is  accompanied  by  gravity,  a  peculiarly  material  property. 
So  color  is  truly  a  material  property,  it  cannot  attach  to  a  feeling,  properly  so 
called,  a  pleasure  or  a  pain.  .  .  .  These  three  properties  are  the  basis  of  mat- 
ter; to  them  are  superadded,  form,  motion,  position,  and  a  host  of  other  proper- 
ties expressed  in  terms  of  these — attraction  and  repulsion,  hardness,  elastic- 
ity, cohesion,  crystalization,  heat,  light,  electricity,  chemical  properties,  or- 
ganized properties  in  special  kinds  of  matter.  .  .  Mental  states  and  bodily 
states  are  utterly  contrasted ;  they  cannot  be  compared,  they  have  nothing  in 
common  except  the  same  general  attributes — degree  and  order  in  time;  when 
engaged  in  one  we  must  be  oblivious  of  all  that  distinguishes  the  other." — Mind 
and  Body,  pp.  124,  125,  135. 

2.  If  all  mental  operations  are  but  manifestations  of 
physical  changes  in  the  brain,  there  can  be  no  such 
thing  as  freedom  of  the  human  will. 

All  physiologists,  it  is  admitted,  are  prepared  to  con- 


382  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

cede  that  mental  activities  are  largely  dependent  upon 
physical  causes, — upon  the  supply  of  oxygenated  blood, 
upon  the  measure  of  perfection  attained  by  the  bodily 
organism,  upon  inherited  tendencies  which  have  given 
character  to  the  physical  organs,  upon  the  influence  of 
acquired  habits  which  have  imparted  potency  to  certain 
parts  of  the  physical  organization,  upon  the  strength  and 
character  of  impressions  conveyed  to  the  sensorium, 
upon  the  condition  of  the  nervous  system,  upon  the 
quality  and  quantity  of  the  food  one  eats,  upon  the  pro- 
cess of  digestion  and  assimilation,  etc.  The  materialist, 
however,  affirms  that  mental  operations  of  every  kind — 
sensational,  perceptive,  emotional,  rational,  and  voli- 
tional— are  not  only  largely  dependent  upon  physical 
causation,  but  exclusively  dependent  thereon.  He  re- 
gards man  as  a  mere  machine,  his  sensations,  his  emo- 
tions, his  ideas,  his  motives,  and  even  his  acts  of  will, 
being  determined  for  him,  not  by  him.  Every  change 
in  him,  and  every  act  performed  by  him,  is  viewed 
as  a  necessary  result  of  physical  causes,  the  brain  only 
acting  as  it  is  forced  to  act  under  impulses  over  which 
the  ego  has  absolutely  no  control.  From  this  it  of 
course  follows  that  all  desires,  all  conceptions,  all 
judgments,  all  motives,  all  determinations,  all  moral 
sentiments,  all  religious  impulses,  find  their  origin  in 
purely  material  conditions.  Every  person  is  a  creature 
of  stern  and  inexorable  necessity,  a  helpless  child  of 
nature,  a  mere  automaton,  whose  hidden  wires  are  pulled 
by  uncontrollable  physical  forces;  he  is  as  irresistibly  im- 
pelled to  do  what  he  does  as  the  magnetic  needle  is 
impelled  to  point  towards  the  magnetic  pole.  Con- 
sequently, he  can  neither  incur  censure,  nor  acquire 
merit.  He  cannot  be  in  any  respect  different  from  what 
he  is;  and  consequently  is  irresponsible  for  his  conduct, 


MOLECULAR    VIBRATIONS    IN    THE    BRAIN.  383 

as  completely  so  as  the  raving  maniac.  He  cannot 
deserve  commendation,  nor  is  he  justly  amenable  to  any 
law,  human  or  divine.  The  decisions  of  his  will  are 
results  for  which  he  is  in  no  measure  accountable. 

That  the  human  will  is  not  so  completely  under  the 
control  of  ungovernable  impulses  produced  by  physical 
agencies,  but  is  capable  of  rising  above  the  promptings 
which  result  from  purely  material  conditions,  and  may 
mold  outward  circumstances  in  measure  at  least,  is  the 
conviction  of  every  human  being  who  has  not  speculated 
himself  into  skepticism  in  reference  to  the  plain  teach- 
ings of  reason.  It  is  safe  to  affirm  that  all,  save  those 
who  have  been  long  groping  in  the  midnight  darkness 
of  materialism,  are  prepared  to  concede  that  man  pos- 
sesses the  priceless  boon  of  freedom;  that  in  the  will  he 
possesses  a  power  which,  by  virtue  of  its  control  over  all 
mental  operations,  enables  him  to  determine  his  opin- 
ions, to  decide  what  amount  of  potency  shall  be  accorded 
to  any  particular  motive,  and  to  elect  his  course  of  con- 
duct.    He  is  conscious  of  ability  to  form  his  own  character. 

Nor  is  this  conviction,  in  reference  to  a  self-deter- 
mining power  of  the  will,  a  mere  delusion.  It  exists  in 
greater  or  less  measure  in  every  rational  being,  and  may 
be  developed  by  judicious  exercise.  True,  it  may  be 
allowed  to  grow  weaker  and  weaker,  till  self-control 
becomes  nearly  or  quite  impossible,  and  the  character 
becomes  the  resultant  of  inherited  tendencies  and  of 
environing  circumstances;  but  this  does  not  prove  that 
in  the  well-regulated  mind  the  will  has  no  determining 
power.  Will-power  may  be  completely  lost,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  insane,  whose  actions  may  result  from  purely 
physical  causes;  but  this  evidently  proves  that  in  the 
normal  condition  of  the  mind,  the  self-determining 
power  of  the  will  is  a  reality  and  not  a  pure  fiction. 


384  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

Again:  if  the  decisions  of  the  will  are  not  self-formed, 
but  are  consequents  of  material  changes  over  which  thv 
ego  has  no  dominion,  then,  manifestly,  man  ought  not  to 
be  regarded  as  responsible  for  his  conduct — no  act  ought 
to  be  viewed  as  reprehensible.  It  is,  however;  and  this 
disposition  in  man  to  pronounce  some  acts  criminal 
carries  with  it  the  conviction  that  the  will  is  free. 
Criminality  is  not  regarded  as  a  form  of  insanity,  for 
which  it  is  unreasonable  to  hold  men  responsible.  In 
every  age  and  in  every  clime,  man  has  considered  his 
fellow  responsible  for  conduct  so  long  as  reason  is  on  its 
throne.  When  he  has  so  far  lost  self-control,  by  reason 
of  continued  transgressions,  as  to  be  irresponsible  for  the 
criminal  act  performed,  he  is  justly  considered  responsible 
for  his  irresponsibility;  and  when,  as  often  happens, 
reason  has  fallen  from  her  lofty  pedestal,  the  will  being 
no  longer  capable  of  controlling  motives,  ideas,  opinions, 
and  conduct,  society  regards  itself  justified  in  placing  the 
unfortunate  automaton  under  the  will  of  another.  Xor 
does  physiology  teach  that  in  such  cases  the  mind  remains 
sound,  the  insanity  being  due  to  disordered  or  diseased 
material  organs.  It  teaches  that  the  real  cause  of  the 
unreasonable  and  irresponsible  conduct  is  that  the  will 
has  lost  its  legitimate  dominion,  being  no  longer  equal  to 
the  task  of  controlling  mental  operations. 

Consequently,  while  physiologists  admit  that  the  ac- 
tivities of  mind  are  determined  in  no  small  measure  by 
material  changes  in  the  brain,  they  nevertheless  insist 
that  the  will,  in  its  higher  operations  at  least,  is  so  far 
beyond  the  reach  of  influences  purely  material  that  it 
may  be  regarded  as  free  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word. 
Physical  causes  are  not  in  themselves  adequate  to  deter- 
mine its  decisions.  This  self-determining  power  of  the 
will  is  the  rock  against  which  the  waves  of  materialism 


MOLECULAR    VIBRATIONS    IN    THE    BRAIN  385 

have  been  fruitlessly,  dashing  themselves  for  centuries. 
It  remains  unmoved.  The  majority  of  mankind  are  in- 
disposed to  consider  themselves  mere  machines  driven 
by  invisible  physical  forces.  They  are  unwilling  tobelieve 
the  immoral  as  innocent  as  the  moral,  the  murderer  as 
guiltless  as  the  philanthropist:  they  believe  that  human 
beings  can  merit  praise  and  deserve  censure. 

Once  more:  if  our  volitions  have  their  origin  in  molec- 
ular vibrations,  or  in  physical  changes  of  some  kind  in 
the  brain;  then,  in  case  I  will  to  carry  forwards  a  process 
of  reasoning,  thereby  setting  the  rational  faculties  to 
work,  I  must  believe  that  material  changes  of  some  kind 
precede  the  act  of  volition,  actually  producing  it.  Whence 
comes  the  impulse  to  this  act  of  will  ?  It  may  come,  some 
imagine,  from  without,  and  in  that  case  may  be  conceived 
as  having  produced  some  material  change  in  the  brain, 
which  change  resulted  in  a  volition.  This,  however,  has 
by  no  means  been  rendered  clear.  Others  conjecture 
that  the  impulse  comes  from  within  and  may  be  regarded 
as  having  effected  some  slight  physical  change,  which 
may  by  some  possibility  have  issued  in  the  volition.  This 
has  not  been  proved.  When,  during  the  process,  I  de- 
cide to  pursue  one  line  of  reasoning  in  preference  to  an- 
other equally  seductive,  or  when  I  select  one  thought  from 
many  that  well  up  in  the  mind,  each  seemingly  as  well 
adapted  to  my  purpose  as  another,  or  when,  as  frequently 
happens,  I  appropriate  the  thought  which  should  have 
been  ignored  and  choose  one  unfitted  to  the  end  in  view, — 
what  material  change  impelled  the  decision  ?  Am  I,  even 
in  my  most  purely  intellectual  processes,  a  mere  puppet 
whose  movements  are  determined  by  invisible  strings, 
and  so  determined  as  to  leave  me  under  the  delusion 
that  I  have  done  what  was  in  fact  done  for  me  by  an  au- 
tomatic   machinery  ?     If  so,    psychology   may   as    well 


386  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

surrender  the  field  to  physiology;  indeed,  in  strictness  of 
speech,  psychology,  if  such  views  have  a  foundation  in 
truth,  has  no  field  of  operation,  no  forces,  no  laws,  not 
even  an  existence — is  a  pure  figment  of  the  imagination. 
That  the  will  has  no  power  of  self-determination  is 
so  extremely  difficult  to  believe,  that  it  is  safe  to  affirm, 
Few  can  be  induced  to  accept  the  theory. 

3.  If  mental  activities  are  identical  with  molecular 
vibrations  in  the  brain,  then  these  vibrations,  and  the 
changes  which  accompany  them,  must  differ  in  nature, 
in  degree,  or  in  duration,  else  the  volitions  could  not  dif- 
fer. What  causes  these  molecular  vibrations,  and  the 
material  changes  which  occur,  to  vary  to  such  an  infinite 
extent  ?  Are  the  impressions  which  are  conveyed  over 
the  afferent  nerves  different  in  every  case  ?  In  purely 
subjective  activities  what  causes  volitions  to  differ  ?  If 
the  will  is  not  possessed  of  the  power  of  self-determina- 
tion, there  must  be  an  almost  infinite  number  of  material 
causes,  many  of  them  possessing  only  an  infinitesimal 
measure  of  potency,  for  otherwise  the  will  could  not 
reach  the  decisions  it  does. 

Moreover,  that  not  all  these  decisions  are  results 
of  physical  changes  seems  to  be  rendered  probable 
by  the  fact  that  though  the  application  of  electricity 
to  some  portions  of  the  gray  matter  of  the  cortex  elicits 
muscular  movements,  its  application  to  the  frontal  con- 
volutions produces  no  manifestations, — no  muscular  move- 
ments, no  subjective  activities,  no  exhibitions  of  any 
kind  whatever. 

4.  If  mind  and  matter  are  identical,  or  the  former  is  a 
product  of  the  latter,  then  how  shall  we  account  for  the 
fact  that  the  mind  may  perform  all  its  operations  though 
one  hemisphere  is  removed.  Certainly,  if  all  mental 
activities  are   caused  by  brain-substance,   effects  ought 


MOLECULUR    VIBRATIONS    IN    THE    BRAIN.  387 

to  vary  when  the  cause  varies.  Is  it  possible,  other  things 
remaining  the  same,  that  the  half  of  a  cause  should  be 
removed  without  producing  a  change  in  the  effect  ?  Dr. 
Ferrier  says,  "  The  physiological  activities  of  the  brain 
are  not  co-extensive  with  its  psychological  activities." 

5.  If  mind  and  matter  are  identical  in  their  substratum, 
it  can  only  be,  because,  as  Prof.  Alexander  Bain  affirms, 
"Matter  is  a  double-faced  unity,  with  two  sets  of  proper- 
ties, the  physical  and  the  spiritual."  Then  are  we  under 
the  necessity  of  believing  that  every  atom  of  matter  has 
two  precisely  opposite  sets  of  properties,  which  are  so 
conjoined  that  they  cannot  be  separated  without  anni- 
hilating the  atom;  and  of  course  psychological  activities 
must  correspond  accurately  with  physiological  activities. 
This,  it  is  conceded  by  Dr.  Ferrier,  and  even  by  Prof. 
Bain,  is  not  the  case.  Hence  we  conclude  that  matter  is 
not  a  "  somewhat  "  in  which  spiritual  and  physical  prop- 
erties inseparably  co-inhere. 


CHAPTER    XXII. 

AUTOMATIC  ACTIVITY  OF  THE  CEREBRUM. 

THOSE  who  regard  man  as  a  machine — thoughts,  de- 
sires, judgments,  and  volitions  being  mere  products  of 
a  self-adjusting  mechanism  which  is  kept  running  by  ap- 
propriating air,  water,  food,  and  sunshine — are  careful  to 
remind  us  that  not  only  are  the  spinal  cord  and  the 
lower  ganglionic  centers  capable  of  reflex  movements, 
over  which  the  will  has  no  control  and  of  which  the 
ego  may  be  unconscious;  but  that  even  the  higher  cen- 
ters in  the  cerebrum  have  automatic  activities  which 
are  independent  of  volition,  and  of  which  we  may  be 
totally  ignorant. 

As  it  is  unwise  to  ignore  facts,  which  are  helpful,  from 
whatever  source  they  may  emanate;  and  as  truth  is  a 
welcome  visitant  in  whatever  garb  she  may  present  her- 
self, and  however  unexpectedly  she  may  knock  for  en- 
trance at  the  door  of  the  mind, — no  harm  can  come  from 
the  following  concessions:  There  is  an  automatic  activity 
of  the  cerebrum;  of  this  automatic  activity  the  ego  may 
have  no  conscious  knowledge. 

A  brief  examination  of  the  evidence  upon  which  these 
statements  rest  will  aid  in  establishing  the  theory  that 
the  mind,  though  some  of  its  activities  are  automatic,  is 
not  a  mere  machine  run  by  unknown  forces. 

These  automatic  activities  in  the  higher  ganglionic 
centers  are  of  three  kinds,  as  they  are  in  the  lower  gan- 


AUTOMATIC   ACTIVITY    OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       389 

glia.  (i)  Those  activities  which  are  purely  automatic,  like 
instinctive  movements  in  the  lower  animals;  e.  g.y  the 
selection  by  worker-bees  (when  no  queen  is  produced)  of 
worker-eggs  or  worker-larvae  not  yet  three  days  old, 
which,  after  being  hatched  or  carefully  deposited  in  elab- 
orately constructed  "queen  cells,"  are  fed  on  "royal  jelly," 
causing  them  to  come  forth  perfect  queens,  their  bodily 
organization  and  their  physical  capabilities  being  there- 
by essentially  changed; — the  instinctive  acts  of  a  cer- 
tain species  of  caterpillar,  which,  being  accustomed 
to  make  its  hammock  in  six  parts,  if  taken  from  its 
completed  hammock  and  placed  in  an  incomplete  one 
will  finish  it,  or  if  taken  from  an  incomplete  one  and 
placed  in  a  complete  one  will  add  to  its  adopted  home 
the  parts  it  would  have  added  to  its  own; — the  instinc- 
tive acts  of  sucking  and  crying  in  the  human  infant  born 
without  a  brain; — the  movements  in  a  human  subject 
after  division  of  the  spinal  cord.  (2)  Those  activities 
which  are  secondarily  automatic,  that  is,  such  as  have 
become  automatic  through  habit;  e.  g.t  walking,  which, 
though  voluntary  in  the  sense  that  we  can  start  or  stop 
at  will,  is  capable  of  being  continued  after  the  will  is 
withdrawn,  soldiers  having  continued  walking,  as  they 
have  horseback-riding,  when  in  profound  sleep,  in  which 
state  the  will  is  inactive;  in  which  secondarily  automatic 
activities  the  nervous  mechanism  acquires  the  power  of 
movement  independent  of  volition,  and  acquires  it  as  a 
result  of  the  repetition  of  similar  acts,  especially  during 
youth,  when  new  brain-tissue  in  which  such  combina- 
tions may  be  established  is  more  rapidly  and  more  easily 
formed.  (3)  Those  automatic  movements  which  are  ef- 
fects of  the  two  preceding  causes — some  unusual  stim- 
ulus acting  upon  centers  which  are  in  a  state  of  suscep- 
tibility to  slight  influences;  e.  g.}  the  convulsive  actions 


390  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

characteristic  of  epilepsy  and  hysteria;  the  running  of 
an  artificially  hatched  chick  in  obedience  to  the  call  of  a 
hen;  the  alarm  of  a  young  fox  on  hearing  the  barking  of 
the  hounds;  the  sudden  start  man  makes  on  hearing  an 
unexpected  sound;  the  closing  of  the  eyelids  when  a 
bright  light  is  suddenly  flashed  before  them— which  has 
sometimes  happened  in  the  case  of  persons  who,  owing 
to  paralysis,  were  incapable  of  closing  the  eyes  by  an 
act  of  will;  muscular  contraction  which,  after  being  or- 
dered by  the  will,  continues  without  any  further  act  of 
volition  until  an  order  to  relax  is  issued.  This  muscular 
sense  may  be  lost,  a  person  being  thereby  rendered 
incompetent  to  determine  the  state  of  the  muscles,  for 
example  those  of  the  arm,  except  by  the  aid  of  vision; 
and  consequently  being  incapable  of  holding  anything  in 
the  hand,  if  the  eyes  are  withdrawn  from  it,  vision  being 
necessary  to  keep  the  will  in  operation  and  to  determine 
the  condition  of  the  muscles. 

Automatic  mechanism  occurs,  then,  in  the  operations  of 
the  cerebrum.  An  animal,  so  far  as  it  is  ruled  by  instinct, 
is  a  mere  automaton;  but  in  proportion  as  it  is  directed 
by  reason  and  by  will,  its  purely  automatic  actions  are 
limited  in  number.  Consequently,  if  in  the  ascending 
series  of  organic  beings,  the  self-determined  activities  of 
each  are  compared  with  the  cerebral  development,  such 
a  correspondence  is  discovered  as  leaves  little  room  to 
doubt  that  the  cerebrum  is  the  organ  of  those  psychical 
operations  which  pass  under  the  designations,  "  rational 
and  volitional."  When  we  come  to  man,  in  whom  the 
cerebrum  is  most  fully  developed,  the  primarily  automatic 
activities  are  comparatively  few  in  number;  the  second- 
arily automatic  actions — those  originally  initiated  by  the 
will,  and  which  have  become  automatic  only  through 
continued    repetition — are    more    numerous;    and    those 


AUTOMATIC    ACTIVITY    OF    THE    CEREBRUM,       391 

activities  which  result  from  the  exercise  of  reason  and  will 
are  so  numerous  as  to  indicate  the  possession  of  a  self- 
determining-  power.  The  lower  animals  may  have  no 
volitional  power  of  directing  their  mental  operations, 
which  may  be  regarded  as  purely  automatic,  being 
perhaps  similar  to  the  mental  operations  we  carry  on 
in  dreaming. 

Man  unquestionably  has  the  power  of  determining  in- 
tellectual activities  to  no  inconsiderable  extent.  True, 
in  man  as  well  as  in  the  lower  animals,  currents  of 
thought  and  of  feeling  may  flow  on  under  the  guidance 
of  association  without  any  exercise  of  will-power,  the 
stimulus  being  imparted  either  from  without  or  from  with- 
in, and  the  activity  originating  in  the  gray  matter  of  the 
hemispheres.  This  activity  may  be  considered  a  joint 
result  of  inherited  tendencies,  which  have  been  modified 
by  early  education,  and  of  past  volitional  activities,  which 
by  frequent  repetition  have  become  so  easy  as  no  longer 
to  call  for  a  direct  act  of  will, — indeed,  in  exact  pro- 
portion as  the  intellectual  faculties  are  made  to  do 
the  greater  part  of  their  work  in  obedience  to  direct 
volitional  mandates,  the  automatic  activities  become  ex- 
pressive of  ordinary  modes  of  mental  activity.  Improve- 
ments thus  secured,  whether  by  the  individual  or  by  the 
race,  are  transmissible,  automatic  actions  being  thus 
rendered  easier  for  each  succeeding  generation,  and  the 
progress  of  the  human  family  being  thereby  insured. 
But  though  many  activities  of  the  cerebrum  may  be  re- 
garded as  automatic,  as  much  so  as  the  activities  of  other 
centers,  the  will  has  nevertheless  the  power  of  control- 
ling the  current  of  thought  by  the  simple  intensification  of 
those  impressions  which  it  elects  from  among  the  many 
conveyed  to  the  sensory  ganglia,  some  being  conveyed 
over  the  internal  senses  and  others  over  the  external. 


392  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

As  we  become  conscious  of  these  ideas,  emotions,  and 
judgments  which  have  been  previously  elaborated  by  the 
automatic  machinery,  the  will  proceeds  to  choose  some 
and  ignore  others,  to  magnify  some  and  minify  others, 
thus  furnishing  material  upon  which  the  automatic  ma- 
chinery shall  subsequently  work. 

That  we  are  not  conscious  of  either  the  physiological  or 
psychological  changes  which  accompany  the  formation  of 
ideas  in  the  mind  is  tolerably  evident  from  the  fact  that  in- 
juries inflicted  upon  the  brain  are  not  felt  in  the  slightest 
degree;  and  of  mental  processes,  we  manifestly  remain 
ignorant  until  their  results  are  laid  at  the  door  of  con- 
sciousness. As  is  well  known,  memory,  working  beneath 
the  region  of  consciousness,  frequently  surprises  us  by 
laying  some  coveted  word  beneath  the  vision  of  the  ego. 
Nor  will  it  be  denied  that  the  process  of  reasoning  may 
go  on,  and  frequently  does,  without  our  knowledge,  our 
judgments  being  sometimes  matured  and  delivered  over 
to  the  ego  without  our  being  aware  of  previous  mental 
activity.  The  artist,  whether  he  be  musician,  sculptor, 
or  painter,  recognizes  his  best  conceptions  (though  pro- 
ducts of  materials  which  he  has  furnished)  as  results  at 
which  the  mind  has  arrived  without  any  knowledge,  on 
his  part,  of  its  processes,  or  even  of  its  activity.  It  is 
conceded,  consequently,  that  cerebral  centers,  as  well  as 
lower  ganglionic  centers,  can  act  not  only  automatically, 
but  without  our  being  conscious  of  their  acting  at  the 
time. 

The  mind  receives  impressions  from  within  as  well  as 
from  without,  as  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  we  are 
often  presented  automatically — as  in  dreams,  or  volition- 
ally — as  in  waking  moments,  with  pictures  which  are  ac- 
curate reproductions  of  pictures  previously  present  in  the 
mind.     Evidently,  some  ganglionic  center  has  reported 


AUTOMATIC   ACTIVITY    OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       393 

an  impression  received  from  the  cerebrum  over  the  nerves 
of  the  internal  senses,  which  impression  is  a  reproduction 
of  one  originally  conveyed  to  the  cerebrum  by  the  exter- 
nal senses,  and  retained  there  for  subsequent  use.  In  the 
automatic  power,  resident  in  the  hemispheres,  of  con- 
structing new  pictures  from  old  materials  as  well  as  of 
reproducing  past  impressions,  a  solution  is  furnished, 
some  think,  of  spectral  illusions,  which  not  being  ex- 
cited by  external  objects  and  having  no  corresponding 
reality  must  of  course  be  understood  as  originating  in 
the  mind  itself. 

That  the  activities  of  the  hemispheres  only  come  into 
the  region  of  consciousness  by  being  conveyed  to  some 
center  in  which  they  are  reported,  seems  probable,  inas- 
much as  precisely  the  same  effects  can  be  produced  by 
ideas  as  are  produced  by  sounds,  sights,  etc.  One  may 
call  himself  in  sleep,  the  quality  of  the  voice  being  so 
accurately  reproduced  in  idea  as  to  leave  upon  the  mind 
the  conviction  that  a  certain  friend  called  him.  He 
awakes,  and  can  scarcely  persuade  himself  that  his  friend 
did  not  call  him.  The  hemispheres  have  conveyed  a 
past  impression  to  the  center  of  consciousness.  What 
prompted  the  call,  the  sleeper  does  not  know.  He  may 
not  even  retain  the  consciousness  of  having  been  dream- 
ing. It  is  also  well  known  that  a  "  ticklish"  person  can 
be  affected  by  simply  pointing  the  finger  towards  him. 
The  hemispheres,  excited  to  activity  by  the  mere  sight 
of  a  harmless  gesture,  have  sent  a  reproduced  impression 
to  the  seat  of  consciousness. 

There  is,  perhaps,  or  probably,  one  nervous  center,  and 
but  one,  through  which  we  become  conscious,  alike  of 
impressions  from  the  external  world  and  of  changes  in 
the  internal  world — from  which  center  emanate  the  im- 
pulses to  respondent  action. 


394  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Many  activities  of  the  cerebrum  maybe  regarded,  then, 
as  purely  automatic;  as  when  the  thoughts  run  on,  in  ac- 
cordance with  suggestions,  without  determination  by 
volition;  or,  as  in  muscular  movements  prompted  by 
simple  ideas  either  with  or  without  the  accompaniment 
of  feeling.  In  the  former  case,  the  changes  are  deter- 
mined partly  by  the  constitution  inherited  from  ancestors 
— which  constitution  was  determined  in  measure  by  the 
habits  of  past  generations;  and  partly  by  individual 
habits  acquired  through  frequent  repetition  of  the  same 
or  similiar  acts — acts  done  in  the  past,  and  the  effects 
they  leave  on  character  being  the  most  potent  impulses 
in  determining  the  conduct  of  the  present.  In  the  latter 
case,  the  changes  are  determined  by  intellectual  or  emo- 
tional impulses  originating  in  the  mind  itself,  in  which 
impulses  the  will  might  have  exercised  a  controlling  in- 
fluence. And  of  these  automatic  activities,  whether 
originating  in  inherited  dispositions  or  in  simple  ideas, 
we  may  be  unconscious. 

Until  it  has  been  proved,  however,  that  acts  desig- 
nated "  volitional  "  now  receive,  and  from  infancy  have 
received,  their  stimulus  exclusively  from  automatic  cen- 
ters, it  cannot  be  legitimately  asserted  that  the  will  has 
no  self-determining  power. 

From  the  nature  of  the  nervous  system,  sense-impres- 
sions travel  in  an  upward  direction  (if  they  meet  with  no 
interruption)  until  they  arrive  at  the  cerebrum,  no  auto- 
matic movement  being  generated  in  their  course.  In 
passing  through  the  sensory  ganglia,  they  give  rise  to  a 
sensation,  which  being  transmitted  to  the  hemispheres 
causes  changes  in  their  cortical  substance,  the  results  of 
which  are,  or  may  be,  subsequently  sent  as  an  idea  to  the 
seat  of  consciousness  and  may  find  expression  either  au- 
tomatically or  volitionally.     If  the  sense-impression  is 


AUTOMATIC   ACTIVITY   OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       395 

interrupted  in  its  ascending-  course,  automatic  movements 
result,  the  nature  of  the  movement  being  determined  by 
the  point  at  which  the  interruption  occurs. 

If,  after  the  impression  has  reached  the  cerebrum,  the 
will  for  any  reason  is  in  abeyance,  automatic  activities  may 
occur,  ideas  taking  such  complete  possession  of  the  mind 
as  to  excite  respondent  actions,  as  in  cases  where  the 
will  has  become  enfeebled;  or  when  it  is  inactive,  as  in 
sleep;  or  when  its  energies  are  concentrated  on  something 
else,  as  when  a  speaker's  automatic  machinery  is  furnish- 
ing language  and  coloring  to  thoughts  already  committed 
to  it  for  delivery,  while  the  will  and  the  reason  are  gather- 
ing truths  which  are  to  find  expression  in  subsequent 
sentences.* 

It  may  be  profitable  to  enumerate  the  intellectual  ex- 
ercises which  may  be  either  automatic  or  volitional. 

I.  Impressions: — These,  which  are  changes  in  the 
nervous  system  immediately  antecedent  to  sensation,  are 
essentially  automatic,  though  they  may  be  intensified  by 
successive  acts  of  volitional  attention.  By  dwelling  upon 
fancied  ailments  one  may  produce  the  disease  he  dreads. 
By  directing  attention  to  the  evidences  of  recovery  from 
sickness,  he  may  secure  return  to  health,  and  may  be- 
come convinced  that  his  restoration  is  in  consequence 
of  the  remedies  he  has  taken,  though  he  has  swallowed 
no  medicine  more  potent  than  bread-pills,  which  being 
received  from  the  hands  of  a  physician,  in  the  confident 
expectation  that  they  would  effect  a  cure,  prove  instru- 
mental in  healing  imaginary  ailments. 

*  Sir  Walter  Scott's  amanuensis  says  that  the  celebrated  author,  while  ut- 
tering the  sentence  to  be  copied,  would  frequently  consult  a  book  in  his  library, 
accumulating  materials  tor  subsequent  passages,  the  volitional  activities  being 
in  advance  of  the  automatic,  as  was  evident  from  the  occasional  presence,  in  the 
sentence  uttered,  of  a  word  wholly  inappropriate,  but  which,  belonging  in  a 
subsequent  sentence,  would  appear  presently  in  its  proper  place. 


396  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

2.  Sensations : — The  ability  to  locate  an  impression, 
which  may  be  regarded  as  the  first  mental  stage  in  a  con- 
scious sensation,  is  unquestionably  automatic,  whether  we 
view  it  as  an  inheritance  or  as  an  acquisition  under  ex- 
perience. Impressions  from  the  external  world  are  re- 
ferred to  the  ends  of  the  nerves  which  convey  them  to 
the  sensory  ganglia;  and  the  process  is  purely  automatic. 
In  some  instances,  indeed  in  not  a  few,  impressions  are 
erroneously  located.* 

Nor  can  it  be  denied  that  the  effects  which  these  im- 
pressions produce  upon  the  mind  are  determined  in  meas- 
ure by  the  condition  of  the  physical  organism,  through 
which  they  are  interpreted  to  the  consciousness  of  the 
recipient.  In  sleep,  for  example,  there  is  diminished  re- 
ceptivity to  sense-impressions;  though,  from  the  fact 
that  unusual  sounds  though  not  loud,  or  exceptionally 
loud  sounds  though  usual,  generally  awaken  the  sleeper, 
it  is  evident  that  the  sensory  ganglia  are  still  receptive. 
So  likewise  there  are  states  of  excessive  sensibility  to  ex- 
ternal impressions,  as  in  fevers.  The  measure  of  recep- 
tivity in  each  case  is  no  doubt  conditioned  in  part  upon 
the  quantity  and  quality  of  the  blood  present  in  the 
brain  at  the  time;  and  the  intensity  of  the  sensation  is 
measured,  other  things  being  equal,  by  the  attention 
directed  to  the  impression,  that  is,  sensations  may  be 
augmented  or  diminished  by  an  indirect  exercise  of  the 
will. 

The  several  sensations, — hearing,  sight,  smell,  taste, 
touch, — which  may  be  produced  by  impressions  received 

*  Impressions  made  upon  the  cut  ends  of  nerves,  in  the  stump  of  an 
amputated  arm,  may  be  referred  to  the  fingers.  Pains  in  the  hip-joint  are 
reported  as  painful  impressions  in  the  knee.  Disease  of  the  heart  is  fre- 
quently reported  as  a  pain  in  the  arm.  Pain  in  the  stomach,  induced  by 
eating  ice-cream,  is  located  by  some  persons  in  the  throat;  by  others,  over  the 
eye. 


AUTOMATIC   ACTIVITY   OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       397 

from  the  external  world,  and  are  primarily  automatic, 
may  also  be  produced  by  impulses  conveyed  from  the 
cerebrum;  that  is,  they  may  be  purely  subjective,  and  are 
either  reproductions  of  sensations  previously  experienced 
or  direct  products  of  cerebral  activity.  Of  course,  such 
sensations,  like  those  produced  by  sense-impressions,  are 
essentially  automatic.  If  one  is  fully  persuaded  that  he 
has  received  a  severe  injury  in  any  part  of  his  body,  he 
may  experience  acute  pain,  at  least  imagine  he  does, 
though  the  part  is  absolutely  uninjured.  Indeed,  there 
are  persons,  the  character  of  whose  sensations  can  be 
made  to  depend  upon  the  idea  dominant  in  the  mind  at 
the  time;  even  as  there  are  some  whose  ideational  and 
emotional  states  may  be  determined  by  the  sensations 
reported  from  the  attitude  of  the  muscles.  The  "biolo- 
gized "  subject  has  the  sensations  which  correspond  with 
the  ideas  having  control  of  his  mind  at  the  time.  A  per- 
son in  a  "  hypnotic  "  state  has  ideas  which  are  suggested 
by  the  tension  given  to  the  muscles; — a  devout  man,  if 
placed  upon  the  knees  in  an  attitude  of  prayer,  while  in 
the  "hypnotic"  state,  engages  in  earnest  supplication  to 
the  Father  of  All.  Thus,  men,  at  least  some  men,  can 
be  made  to  feel  what  they  expect  to  feel,  to  see  what 
they  expect  to  see,  to  smell  what  they  expect  to  smell, 
to  hear  what  they  expect  to  hear,  and  even  to  do  what 
the  muscles  suggest  should  be  done,  because  it  is  usually 
done  when  they  are  under  similar  tension.  Sensations, 
then,  which  cannot  be  distinguished  from  conscious 
sense-impressions,  may  be  automatically  produced  by 
the  cerebrum;  and  sensations,  in  which  the  will  is  appar- 
ently unconcerned,  may  automatically  produce  idea- 
tional states. 

In    like    manner,    joyousness    and   despondency  are 
states    produced,    not  exclusively   nor  even  mainly,    by 


398  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

external  conditions,  nor  by  conscious  volitional  acts, 
but  by  an  automatic  adjustment  of  the  several  mental 
faculties,  which  adjustment  results  no  doubt  in  large 
measure  from  the  state  of  the  physical  health.  The 
origin  of  these  states  is  to  be  found  in  subjective  condi- 
tions, superinduced  in  part  by  physical  causes,  over 
neither  of  which  the  will  has  any  direct  control,  though 
it  may  be  regarded  as  having  an  indirect  influence. 
While  a  despondent  person,  as  must  be  conceded,  has  no 
power  of  becoming  cheerful  by  simply  willing  to  do  so, 
he  can  will  to  look  upon  the  sunny  aspects  of  life,  to 
seek  cheerful  society,  to  afford  healthful  occupation  to 
both  body  and  mind,  to  ignore  the  existence  of  those 
misfortunes  which  depress  his  spirits,  to  divert  attention 
from  those  rasping  anxieties  which  wear  upon  the  ner- 
vous system,  and  to  secure  for  himself  an  environment 
which  will  render  joyousness  more  easily  attainable. 

A  similar  course  is  always  open  to  those  who,  in  mat- 
ters moral  and  religious,  have  become  for  the  time  being 
the  helpless  victims  of  circumstances.  They  may  not  be 
able  in  the  present,  it  is  true,  to  resist  temptations  to 
courses  of  conduct  or  to  the  acceptance  of  religious 
doctrines,  which  are  unreasonable  and  even  impolitic; 
but  it  certainly  does  not  follow  that  they  are  power- 
less for  all  time  to  come,  inexorable  fate  impelling 
them  to  courses  which  can  only  end  in  irretrievable 
disaster.  They  may  resolve  to  pay  more  attention 
to  motives  which  they  have  too  long  disregarded;  to 
weigh  arguments  which,  though  unanswerable,  have 
been  scorned  by  them  till  folly  has  usurped  the  place  of 
good  judgment. 

3.  Attention: — This,  which  is  the  power  of  concen- 
trating thought  upon  a  particular  impression  or  set  of 
impressions,  received  either  from  within  or  from  without, 


AUTOMATIC    ACTIVITY    OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       399 

is  at  first  purely  automatic.  The  child's  mind  is  at- 
tracted by  objects  presented  to  it,  independent  of  any 
act  of  volition.  In  the  case  of  an  adult,  however,  in 
whom  will-power  has  been  strengthened  by  education 
and  exercise,  attention,  in  reference  alike  to  what  is 
going  on  in  the  external  world  and  to  subjective  states, 
is  either  automatic  or  volitional.  Without  an  act  of  will 
he  may  have  his  attention  directed  to  a  beautiful  land- 
scape. By  an  act  of  will,  he  may  direct  special  attention 
to  it  and  may  fix  an  appreciative  gaze  upon  some  one 
object  in  it,  to  the  neglect  of  all  else.  In  like  manner, 
while  volitional  power  is  engaged  in  riveting  attention 
upon  a  complicated  process  of  reasoning,  he  may  greet  a 
friend  without  having  any  conscious  knowledge  of  his 
friend's  presence,  or  at  least  no  such  knowledge  as  will 
leave  a  remembrance  of  having  met  him,  the  attention 
bestowed  being  automatic. 

Not  only  may  attention  be  automatically,  and  even 
unconsciously,  directed  towards  a  particular  object,  but 
in  some  instances  it  cannot  be  withdrawn  by  an  act  of  will. 
The  stricken  wife,  at  the  bed-side  of  her  dying  husband, 
finds  it  almost  impossible  to  divert  attention  from  her 
unhappy  condition.  The  lad  who,  while  concentrating 
attention  upon  the  successive  steps  in  a  difficult  math- 
ematical problem,  is  summoned  to  the  ball-ground  in 
order  to  decide  whether  his  "  nine"  or  his  rival's  "  nine" 
are  victors,  soon  discovers  that  his  will  is  unequal  to  the 
task  of  riveting  the  mind  upon  the  demonstration  under 
consideration,  no  matter  how  strong  his  purpose  may  be, 
nor  how  ardent  his  ambition  to  secure  a  prize,  nor  how 
earnest  his  desire  to  be  in  readiness  for  the  coming  ex- 
aminations, nor  how  great  his  fondness  for  "  pure  reason- 
ing." The  attractiveness  of  the  game  and  of  its  accom- 
paniments sets  volition  at  defiance.     The  business  man, 


400  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

in  the  sanctuary,  is  listening-  to  the  claims  of  religion; 
but  for  six  days  he  has  been  concentrating  his  thoughts 
upon  a  plan  for  rescuing  his  imperiled  fortune  from  the 
grasp  of  unprincipled  rascality.  A  new  method  of 
procedure  has  been  devised  in  the  active  brain  and  sent 
thence  to  the  seat  of  consciousness.  His  attention  is 
instantly  absorbed;  and  the  will  may  command  never  so 
imperatively,  "  Heed  the  message  of  life,"  but  the  atten- 
tion is  still  directed  to  the  new  scheme  of  escape  from 
environing  perplexities.  He  needs  to  have  a  remark- 
ably well  developed  will  to  enable  him  to  control 
this  automatic  impulse. 

We  should  not  fail  to  note,  however,  that  the  will 
maybe  strengthened  in  its  power  of  securing  fixedness 
of  attention,  whether  upon  impressions  received  from 
external  objects  or  from  internal  states.  Thus,  a  good 
musician  can  develop  will-power  to  an  extent  which  may 
enable  him  to  single  out  any  one  part,  or  even  the 
sound  from  any  particular  instrument,  in  a  piece  of  music 
performed  by  a  hundred  players.  The  philosopher  may 
acquire  the  power  of  continuing  his  process  of  reasoning, 
though  acute  disease  is  making  such  ravages  in  his 
physical  organism  as  would  throw  him  into  intense 
agony,  if  attention  was  diverted  from  the  subject  under 
consideration.  Impressions  which  would  produce  pain, 
even  the  most  intense,  if  the  attention  were  not  en- 
grossed in  other  matters,  may  thus  be  entirely  unknown. 
The  attention  may  be  directed  elsewhere  by  the  force  of 
the  will,  or  by  the  attractiveness  of  some  other  object,  or 
by  the  united  influence  of  these  two  agencies.  Some 
persons,  possessed  of  strong  wills,  can  so  completely 
concentrate  their  thoughts  upon  a  particular  subject, 
especially  if  it  is  an  attractive  one,  that  they  may  re- 
main nearly  or  quite  unconscious  of  even  severe  pains. 


AUTOMATIC    ACTIVITY    OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       401 

Children  can  be  made  to  cease  crying  from  the  pain  of  an 
injury,  by  being  attracted  to  notice  some  pleasing  object, — 
consciousness  of  the  injury — that  is,  pain — ceasing,  though 
of  course  the  sensations  continue.  A  soldier  in  battle 
may  receive  a  severe  wound  without  being  aware  of  it 
until  the  excitements  of  the  hour  are  past. 

As  impressions,  which  would  produce  pain  if  the  sen- 
sory ganglia  were  disengaged  and  in  a  state  of  receptivity, 
may  exist  without  affecting  consciousness,  so  also  changes 
may  occur  in  the  cerebrum  of  which  we  would  become 
conscious  if  in  a  condition  to  notice  them,  but  of  which 
we  may  remain  unconscious,  the  changes  being  not  only 
purely  automatic,  if  the  will  is  not  concerned  in  them, 
but  absolutely  unknown;  and  to  affirm  that  such  auto- 
matic activities  are  incapable  of  occurring  without  the 
knowledge  of  the  ego  is  a  pure  assumption  and  one 
which  the  facts  will  by  no  means  warrant. 

Nor  is  it  unworthy  of  note  that  as  a  result  of  attention 
long  and  frequently  concentrated  in  the  performance  of 
any  particular  act,  the  several  senses  can  be  improved 
to  an  extent  truly  marvelous.  The  blind  can  read  by 
simply  passing  the  fingers  over  small  raised  letters,  and  by 
a  mere  touch  of  the  hand  can  recognize  a  person  after 
long  absence.  The  sense  of  smell  in  savages  becomes 
exceedingly  acute.  Hearing  in  the  musician  becomes 
sensitive  to  a  degree  nearly  inconceivable.  That  the 
sense  of  taste  can  be  greatly  improved  is  evidenced 
by  the  results  attainable  by  tea-testers,  who  can  grade 
tea  accurately  by  a  single  sip.  We  are  not  at  liberty 
to  regard  these  and  similar  results  as  the  acquisition, 
through  volitional  attention,  of  an  unusual  power  in  de- 
termining the  character  of  the  impression  made,  for  in 
those  forms  of  somnambulism  in  which  the  attention  is  en- 
grossed by  a  single  idea,  and  as  well  also  in  "  hypnotism," 


402  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

there  is  the  same  acuteness  of  the  senses,  though  the  will 
is  in  abeyance.  Persons  can  be  distinguished  by  smell, 
even  by  the  smell  of  the  gold  ring  taken  from  the 
ringer.  By  the  acuteness  of  what  is  denominated 
"  the  muscular  sense,"  somnambulists  walk  along  house- 
tops; and  by  the  same  agency  "hypnotic"  persons 
have  been  known  to  write  a  letter,  without  any  assist- 
ance whatever  from  vision,  with  perfect  regularity, 
the  lines  being  equidistant,  straight  and  parallel,  the 
words  at  proper  intervals,  the  i's  dotted  and  the  t's 
crossed. 

Thus  it  becomes  evident  that  impressions,  which  as  we 
have  already  seen  may  be  automatically  registered,  may 
also  be  automatically  reproduced. 

Without  troubling  the  reader  with  an  enumeration  of 
the  many  ways  in  which  attention  may  increase  or  dimin- 
ish the  intensity  of  sensations,  alike  those  produced  by 
external  impressions  and  those  received  from  cerebral 
changes,  we  content  ourselves  with  the  affirmation,  that 
in  reference  to  both  classes  of  impressions  attention  may 
be  either  automatic  or  volitional.  Automatic  attention, 
whether  concerned  with  external  or  internal  impressions, 
is  an  involuntary  absorption  of  the  mind  by  an  object  or 
an  idea  in  virtue  of  its  attractiveness,  or  in  virtue  of  the 
vividness  with  which  it  is  presented,  or  in  virtue  of  its 
adaptedness  to  the  state  of  the  recipient's  mind,  which 
adaptedness  may  be  the  conjoint  result  of  the  character 
of  the  impression  and  of  the  inherited  or  acquired  re- 
ceptivity of  the  sensory  ganglia  for  that  kind  of  an  im- 
pression. Volitional  attention  is  the  self-determined 
direction  of  the  faculties  upon  a  sense-impression,  or  upon 
an  idea,  which  the  individual  is  solicitous  of  keeping 
within  the  mental  gaze;  and  it  is  by  this  power  of  elect- 
ing the  objects   upon  which  the  mind  shall  employ  its 


AUTOMATIC   ACTIVITY   OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       403 

energies,  and  of  magnifying  their  importance  by  contin- 
ued contemplation,  that  we  are  able  to  free  ourselves 
from  the  thraldom  of  the  automatic  machinery.  The  will 
is  capable  of  determining  upon  what  the  attention  shall 
be  riveted,  not  always  and  absolutely,  but  generally  and 
with  a  measure  of  certainty  that  leaves  us  conscious  of 
freedom  in  reference  at  least  to  all  the  more  important 
duties  of  life;  and  even  in  those  instances  in  which  we 
feel  ourselves  powerless  in  the  present  to  arrest  the 
automatic  activities  of  the  mind,  we  regard  ourselves  as 
the  creatures  of  present  necessity  simply  because  we 
have  not  wisely  employed  our  freedom  in  the  past,  and 
we  are  strongly  disposed  to  conclude  that  by  a  judicious 
exercise  of  the  will  for  a  protracted  period  of  time,  we 
may  recover  the  liberty  whose  loss  we  so  deeply  deplore. 

4.  Perceptions: — These,  which  are  notions  formed  in 
reference  to  the  object  which  produced  a  sensation,  may 
be  automatic,  as  all  psychologists  concede,  alike  those 
who  regard  them  as  intuitive  and  those  who  view  them  as 
generalizations  based  on  experience — the  former  regard- 
ing them  as  primarily  automatic,  the  latter,  as  second- 
arily so. 

Our  perceptions  of  size,  of  form,  and  in  measure  also 
of  distance,  are  automatic,  except  to  the  limited  extent  in 
which  the  will  has  the  power  of  determining  the  elements 
which  shall  have  most  weight  in  their  formation — this 
being  done  indirectly  by  fixing  the  attention  upon  that 
deemed  most  important.  It  seems  difficult  to  rid  one's  self 
of  the  conviction  that  our  perceptions  are  the  result  of 
protracted  involuntary  education,  which  commencing  at 
the  dawn  of  life  is  carried  forwards  with  greater  or  less 
regularity  till  death,  each  perception  being  in  fact  a  re- 
sultant of  all  past  experiences  in  reference  to  the  object 
which  produced   the   sensation.     The   act   is   essentially 


404  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

automatic,  not  volitional,  as  is  also  the  conviction  of  its 
trustworthiness.  Each  is  apparently  an  immediate  and 
necessary  consequent  of  the  impression  received. 

This  view  is  in  no  way  inconsistent  with  the  well- 
established  fact  that  the  power  of  perception  can  be 
augmented  by  the  habit  of  volitional  attention.  For 
example,  some  deaf  and  dumb  persons  can  acquire 
the  power  of  "  lip  reading,"  interpreting  movements  of 
the  mouth  and  the  lips  into  intelligent  words. 

Nor  is  it  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  any  idea  or 
emotion,  which  may  be  dominant  at  the  time,  may  modify 
the  perception  formed  in  reference  to  any  sense-impres- 
sion. The  imagination,  under  the  influence  of  terror,  can 
construct  frightful  pictures  from  very  harmless  materials, 
and  can  invest  them  with  all  the  semblance  of  reality. 

Nor  is  it  necessary  to  assume  a  hostile  attitude  towards 
those  physiologists  who  insist  that  even  the  moral  sense, 
as  it  exists  in  children  and  in  savages,  is  a  specimen 
of  automatic  activity;  since  it  by  no  means  follows 
that  in  maturer  years,  and  indeed  even  in  children  and 
in  savages,  direction  may  not  be  given  to  the  automatic 
machinery  by  continued  volitional  attention  to  those 
higher  motives  which  reason  pronounces  too  impor- 
tant to  be  either  ignored  or  belittled.  There  is  indeed 
such  a  thing  as  the  mechanism  of  moral  perceptions,  but 
how  that  mechanism  runs,  and  what  its  product  shall 
be,  depend  in  no  inconsiderable  degree  upon  what  the 
will  keeps  prominently  before  the  mind.  It  is  true,  that 
man  cannot  determine,  by  a  direct  act  of  will  and  with 
unerring  certainty,  how  healthful  his  moral  offspring 
shall  be,  now  that  they  have  come  to  the  birth;  but  he  can 
determine  to  feed  his  moral  nature  upon  such  food  that 
its  children  henceforth  shall  have  certain  general  char- 
acteristics, growing  out  of  those  habitual  states  which 


AUTOMATIC    ACTIVITY   OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       405 

volitional  attention  has  gradually  developed  without  any 
interference  with  automatic  machinery.  I  cannot  stop 
the  loom,  it  may  be;  nor  can  I  determine  what  shall  be 
the  nature  of  its  product,  the  materials  being  already 
in  it  and  partly  woven,  but  I  can  decide,  to  some  ex- 
tent at  least,  upon  what  materials  it  shall  work  in  future, 
whether  upon  rags  or  upon  golden  fibers.  It  is  possible 
to  destroy  worthless  fabrics  and  to  strangle  illegitimate 
children. 

5.  Ideas: — The  formation  of  ideas  is  less  dependent 
upon  changes  in  the  sensory  ganglia  than  sensation 
and  perception  are;  indeed,  in  addition  to  the  power  of 
forming  distinct  mental  representations  of  objects  which 
produce  sensations,  the  mind  possesses  the  ability  of 
forming  ideas  independent  of  sensations  immediately  re- 
ceived through  sense-impressions.  It  is  able  to  build 
new  structures  from  the  old  materials  stored  away  in 
memory.  The  past  is  indeed  the  father  of  the  present; 
but  the  living  representatives  of  former  mental  activities 
have  an  individuality  of  their  own. 

That  ideational  activities  are  in  measure  automatic 
seems  probable  from  our  possession  of  primary  beliefs; 
from  the  fact  that  truths  widely  and  warmly  accepted  by 
one  generation  tend  to  become  intuitive  convictions  in 
succeeding  generations,  the  modifications  produced  in 
the  brain  by  their  acceptance  being  capable  of  trans- 
mission by  inheritance;  from  the  possession,  by  some 
persons,  of  the  power  of  performing  exceedingly  difficult 
intellectual  feats  by  processes  which  are  inexplicable, 
not  alone  by  others,  but  even  by  those  performing  them — 
lads,  who  have  received  no  instruction,  and  are  totally 
incompetent  to  explain  the  methods  pursued,  being 
capable  of  multiplying  large  numbers  and  extracting 
their  roots  by  mental  operations  of  some  kind,  though 


406  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

probably  not  by  such  as  are  employed  by  trained  mathe- 
maticians; from  the  almost  marvelous  powers  exercised 
without  any  direct  volition  by  those  possessing  remark- 
able intellectual  gifts,  as  by  Mozart,  Beethoven,  and 
Haydn  in  music,  by  Shakespeare  and  Milton  in  poetry, 
by  Raphael  in  painting,  by  Watts  in  invention — the  con- 
ceptions which  have  rendered  these  names  immortal 
having  come  into  the  region  of  consciousness  from  a  state 
of  automatic,  unconscious  activity. 

While  conceding  that  the  mind  may  act  spontaneously 
in  the  formation  of  ideas  and  in  arranging  the  order  of 
their  succession,  one  is  nevertheless  justified  in  asserting 
that  every  person  is  conscious  of  intellectual  freedom,  be- 
ing convinced  that  above  the  automatic  machinery  there 
is  a  controlling  will.  This  may  have  its  limits,  it  is  true. 
It  may  be  incapable  of  originating  ideas,  as  all  are  pre- 
pared to  concede;  but  from  the  ideas  which  well  up  in  the 
mind,  thrown  into  consciousness  by  the  self-acting  ma- 
chinery, it  may  make  a  selection,  and  by  fixing  attention 
upon  the  elected  idea  may  so  deepen  the  impression  it 
makes  as  to  render  all  other  ideas  impotent  in  compari- 
son therewith.  Consequently,  even  though  the  process 
by  which  ideas  are  evolved  is  regarded  as  exclusively 
automatic — which  it  cannot  be — nevertheless  man's  free- 
dom is  not  imperiled.  So  long  as  he  retains  the  ability, 
by  fixing  attention  upon  a  set  of  ideas  or  upon  their 
nexuses,  of  determining  which  shall  control  his  conduct  in 
any  given  case,  he  cannot  be  considered  as  the  helpless 
victim  of  blind  fate;  and  so  long  as  he  retains  the  power 
of  thus  directing  the  currents  of  thought  and  of  selecting 
those  which  seem  best  adapted  to  enforce  a  conclusion  in 
harmony  with  judgments  maturely  formed,  he  assuredly 
is  not  a  mere  thinking  automaton. 

The  automatic  activity  of  the  cerebral  hemispheres,  as 


AUTOMATIC    ACTIVITY   OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       407 

manifested  in  the  formation  of  ideas,  is  of  course  most 
conspicuous  when  the  intellect  is  in  an  excited  state  and 
the  power  of  the  will  is  in  partial  or  complete  suspense, 
the  mind  being  possessed  by  a  succession  of  mental  rep- 
resentations which  may  either  be  products  of  activity 
called  forth  by  unconscious  impressions,  or  may  be  re- 
sults evolved  in  its  own  operations  carried  on  under  the 
region  of  consciousness — suggestions,  of  whose  origin 
nothing  is  ascertainable.  In  like  manner,  all  acts  which 
are  expressions  of  dominant  ideas  rather  than  of  direct 
volitional  impulse,  may  be  regarded  as  automatic.  It 
does  not  follow,  however,  that  the  ego  is  incapable  of 
arresting  these  automatic  movements.  Certainly  not. 
A  word  is  misplaced  as  the  epistle  is  written,  the  mis- 
placement being  the  result  of  a  temporary  jumbling  of  the 
results  of  two  processes,  the  automatic  and  the  volitional. 
The  automatic  machinery  is  ordered  to  pause  while  cor- 
rections are  made.  This  done,  it  is  permitted  to  run  on, 
performing  its  allotted  work,  while  the  volitional  activities 
are  engaged  in  generating  new  conceptions.  While 
in  a  state  of  mental  abstraction,  the  house  is  passed 
at  which  we  intended  to  call.  The  will  orders  a  halt. 
After  turning  round,  and  while  the  automatic  ma- 
chinery is  engaged  in  doing  allotted  work,  we  again  fall 
into  an  abstracted  state,  perhaps  actually  passing  the 
house  again.  Somewhat  irritated,  the  command  is  given, 
"  Halt."  We  reach  our  destination  because  the  will  has 
proved  master. 

Consequently,  strictly  speaking,  many  of  these  so- 
called  automatic  activities  may  be  regarded  as  auto- 
matic only  in  the  sense  that  the  will,  which  has  ordered 
them,  has  no  further  concern  in  them,  the  extent  to 
which,  under  a  permissive  decree  of  the  will,  they  are 
left  to  themselves,  and  as  well  also  the  measure  in  which 


40S  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

their  operations  are  unknown,  being  determined  by  the  de- 
gree in  which  the  will  is  otherwise  engaged.  Possibly  all 
automatic  movements  are  in  some  sense  volitional,  being 
initiated  by  the  will,  or  having  been  so  frequently  ordered 
as  to  have  become  habitual,  or  being  permitted.  This 
seems  possible  from  the  fact  that  the  will  may  act  with- 
out our  knowledge,  as  heretofore  observed.  Impelled  by 
expectancy,  the  will  may  determine  movements,  without 
the  ego  being  in  any  way  aware  of  it.  In  many  of  the 
phenomena  of  spiritualism,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  will  is  operative,  and  is  free.  The  table  turns  at  which 
spiritualists  are  seated  in  the  confident  expectation  that 
it  will  turn.  They  willed  it  should  turn.  Prof.  Faraday 
has  proved  that  table-moving  by  spirits  is  table-pulling 
by  those  seated  about  it,  "  a  pulling,"  of  which  they  may 
be  unconscious. 

It  follows,  it  is  true,  that  human  testimony,  even  when 
perfectly  sincere,  is  not  always  trustworthy.  This  is  no 
new  revelation,  however.  Free  agents  may  be  doing 
what  they  are  not  conscious  of  doing,  and  what  they  per- 
sist in  asserting  they  are  not  doing.  The  will,  acting 
without  the  knowledge  of  the  ego,  may  cause  a  piece  of 
iron  suspended  in  the  hand  to  vibrate  in  specified  direc- 
tions over  specified  substances.  It  can  cause  a  divining 
rod  to  testify  to  the  presence  of  water  or  of  a  certain 
mineral  formation. 

As  it  is  a  well  established  fact  that  the  will  can  act 
without  our  being  conscious  of  it,  nothing  can  be  gained 
by  an  attempted  denial.  Nor  does  it  follow  that  man  is 
a  mere  automaton  whose  concealed  wires  are  pulled  by 
unknown  forces. 

The  form  of  activity  which  passes  under  the  term  im- 
agination is  also  essentially  automatic,  being,  as  all  con- 
cede, a  species  of  ideation.     That  this  is  not  necessarily 


AUTOMATIC   ACTIVITY    OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       409 

dependent  upon  the  will,  all  are  prepared  to  admit, 
whatever  definition  they  may  feel  disposed  to  give  to  the 
term.  Those  who  prefer  to  regard  it  as  the  faculty 
"which  gives  to  airy  nothingness  a  local  habitation  and 
a  name,"  concede  that  it  is  automatic.  Those  who  ex- 
tend it  to  include  the  faculty  by  which  materials  previ- 
ously accumulated  are  brought  into  forms  of  beauty,  will 
find  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  deny  that  to  "mirror 
forth  the  forms  of  things  unseen  "  is  to  reproduce  past 
images,  or  to  construct  new  images  from  those  repro- 
duced forms.  In  either  case,  the  process  is  as  truly 
automatic  as  memory  is.  So  also,  if  imagination  is  un- 
derstood in  its  lowest  sense,  as  the  reproduction  of  past 
conceptions,  it  is  unquestionably  purely  automatic. 

Though  imagination  is  thus  primarily  independent  of 
volition,  there  can  be  no  question  that  the  will  can  place 
the  faculties  of  the  mind  in  a  state  favorable  to  the  repro- 
duction of  past  images,  or  to  the  creation  of  new  ones; 
nay,  it  can  institute  a  search  for  them,  and  though  it  can- 
not call  them  up  directly,  it  can  pull  at  the  chain  of  as- 
sociated ideas,  till  pictures  which  gratify  the  sense  of 
beauty  arise  in  the  mind — new  combinations  of  old  im- 
ages, or  creations  from  materials  unconsciously  present 
in  the  store-house  of  memory. 

6.  The  Emotions: — These  are  of  two  kinds:  (i)  Those 
which  have  an  objective  origin:  (2)  Those  whose  origin  is 
purely  subjective.  The  existence  of  the  former  is  de- 
pendent upon  the  existence  of  an  external  object.  The 
existence  of  the  latter  is  dependent  upon  the  existence 
of  an  idea  in  the  mind.  In  the  former,  only  the  sensory 
ganglia  are  concerned.  In  the  latter,  the  sensorium  and 
the  cerebrum  are  jointly  concerned,  the  cerebrum  fur- 
nishing the  idea  with  which  pleasure  or  pain  is  associated, 
and  the  sensorium  effecting  the  union  of  the  two. 


410  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

To  that  class  of  emotions  whose  existence  is  depend- 
ent upon  an  external  object  belong  the  sympathetic 
feelings,  as  pleasure  in  another's  favorable  condition, 
pity,  partiality,  dislike,  love,  hatred,  approbativeness,  an 
instinctive  respect  for  M  the  power  which  seems  to  make 
for  righteousness."  These  several  emotions  are  auto- 
matically in  the  mind  on  the  presentation  of  objects  fitted 
to  excite  them. 

To  that  class  of  emotions  whose  existence  is  condi- 
tioned on  ideational  states  belong  benevolence,  malevo- 
lence, pride,  ambition,  veneration,  hope,  fear,  covetous- 
ness — in  short,  any  feeling  associated  in  its  origin  with  an 
idea.  In  emotions  of  this  nature  the  idea  conveyed  to  the 
sensorium  excites  automatic  movements  in  the  same  way 
that  sense-impressions  do.  Laughter  may  be  produced 
by  the  remembrance  of  ludicrous  incidents.  A  feeling 
of  pleasure  or  pain  may  be  excited  by  recalling  sensa- 
tions previously  felt.  The  miser  experiences  a  feeling  of 
satisfaction  on  contemplating  schemes  for  increasing  his 
hoarded  wealth.  The  devout  christian  is  bowed  in  awe 
by  dwelling  upon  the  inapproachable  majesty  of  the  Infi- 
nite. The  daughter,  in  her  new  home,  though  sur- 
rounded by  everything  attractive,  is  melted  into  tears  by 
the  idea  that  her  mother's  home  is  her  home  no  longer. 

The  emotions,  it  is  true,  are  in  many  instances  purely 
automatic;  but  they  are  not  invariably  so.  They  are 
sometimes  so  powerful  as  to  conquer  the  will;  but  they 
are  quite  as  frequently  under  volitional  control,  especi- 
ally in  well  regulated  minds.  Though  they  often  furnish 
the  motives  which  determine  the  decisions  of  the  will, 
they  are  frequently  obedient  servants  of  the  volitional 
powers.  Some  mothers,  under  the  guidance  of  involun- 
tary impulses,  may  indulge  their  children  in  practices 
which  injure  them  and  wound  the  heart  that  loved  them, 


AUTOMATIC  ACTIVITY   OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       411 

not  too  ardently  but  too  indiscreetly.  Some  fathers,  by 
an  act  of  will,  control  that  form  of  love  which  is  common 
to  the  animal  creation,  rendering  it  a  most  efficient  agent 
in  inducing  the  child  to  forego  present  gratification  in 
the  hope  of  securing  future  advantages,  teaching  him 
that  by  controlling  transient  emotions  he  can  purchase 
enduring  happiness.  Being  capable,  through  the  pos- 
session of  a  well  disciplined  will,  of  rendering  paternal 
affection  subservient  to  the  decisions  of  reason,  he  is 
qualified  to  recommend,  and  if  necessary  to  enforce,  the 
duty  of  learning  to  bring  the  emotions  under  volitional 
control;  and  that  such  control  is  attainable  is  evident, 
perhaps  from  his  own  example,  more  manifestly  from  the 
fact  that  the  will  is  frequently  engaged  in  a  violent  strug- 
gle with  the  feelings;  and  it  is  still  more  clearly  evident 
in  that  muscles  which  are  paralyzed  to  emotional  excite- 
ment may  be  still  obedient  to  the  mandates  of  the  will. 
The  muscles  of  the  eye  and  of  the  mouth,  though  ren- 
dered incapable  by  paralysis  of  producing  involuntary 
movements  indicative  of  emotions,  may  still  be  respon- 
sive to  the  will.  Though  no  automatic  movements  can 
occur,  volitional  movements  expressive  of  feelings  can  be 
executed. 

That  the  will  has,  or  may  acquire,  the  power  of  con- 
trolling the  emotions  under  a  variety  of  circumstances  is 
accordingly  conceded  by  physiologists  as  frankly  as  it  is 
by  the  majority  of  mankind,  who  concur  in  believing 
that  rational  beings  may  justly  be  held  responsible  for 
exhibitions  of  temper  and  for  indulging  their  passions. 
This  control,  like  that  exercised  over  the  formation  of 
ideas,  is  not  direct,  it  is  true;  but  we  may  withdraw 
attention  from  dominant  emotions  and  so  leave  them 
to  perish,  or  we  may  determinedly  fix  attention  upon 
something  else,  and  by  "the  expulsive  power  of  a  new 


412  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

affection "  may  enable  the  mind  to  escape  from  what 
would  otherwise  be  complete  thraldom. 

The  will  may  also  prevent,  in  a  majority  of  cases,  the 
expression  in  act  of  the  emotions  struggling  in  the 
bosom,  leaving  them  entombed  in  their  cradle.  This  it 
can  do  by  controlling  the  muscles  which  emotions  might 
otherwise  employ. 

In  those  feelings  which  have  their  origin  in  subjective 
states,  being  the  result  of  an  activity  produced  in  the  sen- 
sorium  by  an  idea  communicated  from  the  cerebrum,  it  is 
possible  for  the  will  to  fix  attention  upon  some  other 
idea,  thereby  rendering  it  dominant,  and  so  generating  a 
new  or  even  an  antagonistic  emotion.  Consequently,  for 
the  impure  thoughts,  which  being  products  of  the  auto- 
matic machinery  involuntarily  flash  into  the  mind,  we  are 
responsible  in  so  far  as  they  are  results  of  habitual  states 
whose  character  our  wills  have  not  been  exerted  in  ren- 
dering different;  and  if,  as  may  be  the  case,  these  moral 
states  are  in  measure  an  inheritance  over  which  the  will 
can  exert  only  partial  control,  our  ancestors  were  re- 
sponsible. "The  iniquities  of  the  fathers  are  visited 
upon  the  children  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation." 
The  visitation  is  not  an  arbitrary  infliction,  however, 
from  the  hand  of  an  omnipotent  Sovereign,  but  a  natu- 
ral consequence  of  character  formed  by  acts  done.  On 
the  other  hand,  neither  do  the  effects  of  volitional  con- 
trol of  the  passions  terminate  with  the  life  of  the  individ- 
ual, but  are  transmissible  to  his  descendants.  Mercy  is 
remembered  to  thousands  of  generations.  Nor  is. this  an 
arbitrary  bestowment  of  unmerited  favors,  but  a  perfectly 
legitimate  outcome  of  causes  having  an  actual  existence 
in  the  creature.  The  results  of  self-discipline  are  more 
enduring  than  those  of  self-indulgence,  because  voli- 
tional control,  long  continued,  produces  cerebral  changes 


AUTOMATIC   ACTIVITY   OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       413 

radical  in  their  nature,  and  permanent  in  their  effects. 
Character  formed  under  volitional  determinations  is 
more  unalterable  than  character  formed  under  temporary 
impulses. 

Consequently,  those  who  are  disposed  to  charge  God 
with  unrelenting  malignity  towards  the  children  of  men, 
and  to  regard  life  as  an  almost  intolerable  burden,  inas- 
much as  human  beings,  even  from  earliest  infancy,  may 
be  weighe'd  down  with  nearly  irresistible  tendencies  to 
evil,  would  do  well  to  remember  that  as  there  can  be  no 
merit  in  untried  goodness,  and  as  the  choice  of  right 
ways  leaves  effects  upon  character  quite  as  permanent,  if 
not  more  permanent,  than  the  effects  of  acts  performed 
from  automatic  impulses,  there  can  be  no  legitimate 
ground  for  charging  God  with  injustice.  He  has  simply 
set  before  us  evil  with  its  consequences,  and  good  with  its 
consequences,  and  left  us  free  to  choose  either,  assuring 
us  that  the  consequences  of  neither  are  confined  to  our- 
selves or  to  this  state  of  existence;  and  that  judgment, 
in  the  day  of  the  final  reckoning,  will  be  based  upon  the 
advantages  enjoyed  in  the  probationary  state,  even  in- 
herited tendencies  being  taken  into  account.  No  one,  as- 
suredly, will  presume  to  affirm  that  justice  required 
that  the  physiological  changes  resulting  from  right  acts 
voluntarily  chosen  should  be  permanent  and  transmissi- 
ble to  posterity,  while  those  resulting  from  evil  causes 
should  be  transient  and  non-transmissible  to  children. 
Could  God  have  presented  man  with  a  more  powerful 
motive  for  shunning  the  wrong  and  clinging  to  the  right 
than  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  fruits  of  each  are  eter- 
nal to  the  individual,  and  may  be  an  inheritance  to  chil- 
dren's children  ?  A  man's  own  destiny  for  time  and  for 
eternity,  and  even  in  measure  the  destiny  of  his  descend- 
ants, is  suspended  upon  the  manner  in  which  he  employs 


414  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

his  volitional  powers.  If  such  motives  are  inadequate  to 
deter  one  from  evil,  what  can  deter  him  ?  If  there  can 
be  no  real  goodness  except  in  the  volitional  preference 
of  right  to  wrong,  why  charge  our  Maker  with  cruelty  ? 

Consequently,  as  is  evident,  there  is  no  difficulty 
whatever  in  securing  a  scientific  basis  for  the  assertions 
of  Scripture  that  "out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart 
the  mouth  speaketh;  "  that  "  out  of  the  heart  are  the 
issues  of  life."  Certainly  science  teaches  with  unmistak- 
able clearness  that  the  currents  of  thought  determine  the 
acts  of  life.  The  past  is  father  of  the  present.  Present 
character  is  the  legitimate  child  of  past  conduct.  Domi- 
nant ideas  generate  emotions.  Emotions  impel  to  acts. 
Actions,  especially  if  they  become  habitual,  distil  into 
character.  In  each  stage,  the  will  is  conscious  of  freedom. 
It  can  determine  which  ideas  shall  be  consciously  present 
and  dominantly  operative  in  the  mind.  It  can  decide 
which  motives  shall  remain  in  the  ascendancy.  It  can 
decree  which  acts  shall  be  performed.  It  can  ordinarily 
execute  these  decrees.  The  effects  it  is  capable  of  pro- 
ducing may  not  be  produced  directly,  as  they  frequently 
are  not;  but  as  it  unquestionably  can  produce  them 
indirectly  in  a  majority  of  cases  at  least,  the  results  are 
the  same  as  if  they  were  direct  consequences  of  an 
immediate  volition. 

7.  Memory: — In  this  there  are  four  essential  constitu- 
ents, registration,  retention,  reproduction,  recognition. 
The  impression  is  recorded  in  the  brain.  It  is  retained 
there  by  a  process  of  nutrition.  It  is  reproduced  there- 
from. It  is  recognized  as  a  reproduction  of  a  previous 
state  of  consciousness. 

The  process  of  registration  is  a  series  of  physical 
changes  produced  in  the  brain  by  some  change  in  the  nu- 
trition it  receives.     Material  particles,  received  from  the 


AUTOMATIC   ACTIVITY    OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       415 

blood,  are  deposited  in  groups  of  nerve-cells  and  nerve- 
fibers;  which  structure  is  the  material  representative  of 
the  facts  deposited.  As  these  tracks  and  scars  constitute 
connected  systems,  one  idea  suggests  another  as  we  re- 
produce the  previous  states  of  consciousness.  The  asso- 
ciation of  ideas  is  due  to  the  connected  series  of  material 
atoms  which  constitute  the  physical  registration.  This  is 
conceded  by  physiologists.  That  the  process  is  dependent 
upon  nutrition  received  from  the  blood  seems  exceed- 
ingly probable  from  the  following  considerations;  what  is 
soon  learned  is  soon  forgotten,  probably  because  insuf- 
ficient time  is  allowed  for  the  production  of  enduring 
changes  in  the  brain-substance; — what  is  thoroughly 
learned,  being  made  a  part  of  one's  mental  furniture,  is 
remembered  for  a  long  time,  likely  for  life,  probably 
because  enduring  material  changes  are  effected  in  the 
brain,  rendering  it  certain  that  association  can  call  up 
the  registered  ideas; — an  injury  to  the  head  causing 
temporary  insensibility  leaves  one  without  the  power 
of  recalling  events  which  immediately  preceded  the  in- 
jury, seemingly  because,  owing  to  the  shock  to  the 
system,  nutrition  from  the  blood  has  not  been  fur- 
nished with  which  to  register  the  events,  or  because, 
as  in  the  case  of  ideas  hastily  committed  to  memory, 
time  sufficient  during  a  state  of  consciousness  was  not 
allowed  for  their  effectual  registration; — one  commits 
to  memory  more  readily  when  well  and  unwearied,  be- 
cause, as  seems  most  probable,  the  brain  is  more  active 
and  the  blood  less  deteriorated,  the  process  of  registra- 
tion by  the  formation  of  tracks  and  scars  being  conse- 
quently more  rapid  and  more  effectual; — impressions 
registered  in  youth  are  more  enduring  than  those  regis- 
tered in  old  age,  apparently  because  the  brain  can  be 
most  modified  during  its  growth,  when  a  sufficiency  of 


£16  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

healthful  blood  is  furnished  for  the  formation  of  new 
nerve-cells  and  new  nerve-fibers; — we  reproduce  an  idea 
or  a  sensation  which  was  once  within  the  region  of  con- 
sciousness, but  eludes  our  grasp  for  the  present,  by  call- 
ing up  an  associated  idea,  thereby  setting  the  train  of 
material  representatives  of  past  thoughts  into  motion. 

These  scars  and  tracks  (which  may  be  regarded  as 
the  physical  basis  of  memory),  whether  they  are  the 
material  representatives  of  nothing  else  than  ideas,  as 
some  affirm,  or  are  representatives  of  sense-impressions 
as  well  as  of  ideas,  as  others  assert,  may  unquestionably 
be  produced  by  purely  automatic  processes  without  any 
conscious  assistance  from  the  will.  The  record  can  be 
made  without  any  direct  act  of  volition;  still,  as  no  one 
denies,  the  will  can  render  the  registration  more  rapid 
and  more  enduring  by  riveting  attention  upon  the  ideas 
to  be  registered,  thereby  causing  the  wide  difference  be- 
tween ideas  temporarily  lodged  in  memory,  and  those 
permanently  laid  away  in  its  enduring  structures. 

The  retention  of  ideas  registered  in  the  brain  is  effected 
by  the  maintenance  of  the  material  structure  originally 
produced.  The  continuance  of  this  structural  registration 
is  secured,  notwithstanding  the  waste  continually  going 
on,  by  the  deposit  of  new  materials  in  the  exact  form  of 
the  old,  the  new  being  received  from  the  blood  and  the  old 
being  carried  out  of  the  system.  Consequently,  though 
the  brain  undergoes  a  complete  change  in  every  material 
atom  once  in  every  seven  years,  or  once  in  each  year  as 
science  now  affirms,  the  material  tablet  remains  essen- 
tially unchanged;  and,  as  a  result,  ideas  committed 
to  memory  in  youth  remain  with  us  down  to  old  age — 
some  even  affirming  that  facts  well  imbedded  in  memory 
are  not  obliterated  till  death.  Those  received  in  youth 
and    early    maturity,    being    effectually    registered    by 


AUTOMATIC   ACTIVITY   OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       417 

consequence  of  the  vigor  of  the  constitution  and  the 
quality  of  the  blood,  are  retained,  that  is,  reconstructed 
in  new  tissue;  those  received  in  later  years  are  more 
readily  effaced,  because,  owing  to  the  impoverished  con- 
dition of  the  blood,  little  more  is  possible  than  the  main- 
tenance of  structures  previously  perfected,  the  diminution 
of  nutritive  activity  leaving  new  structures  to  be  but 
imperfectly  formed,  and  consequently  effaceable. 

In  this  constituent  of  memory,  automatic  activity  is 
a  primary  element;  still,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
will  can  assist  very  materially  in  securing  the  retention 
of  ideas  in  the  mind.  This  it  can  do  by  indirectly  calling 
up  the  treasured  ideas,  their  mere  presence  again  in  the 
mind  rendering  it  far  more  probable  that  the  material 
structure  will  be  effectually  perpetuated.  It  is  no  doubt 
owing  to  this  assistance  rendered  by  the  will,  that  the 
youth,  by  frequent  reviews,  ensures  the  retention  of  a 
science  whose  facts  might  otherwise  slip  from  memory. 
The  reviews  deepen  and  perfect  the  furrows  made  in  the 
brain  by  the  facts  entrusted  to  the  keeping  of  memory. 
It  keeps  them,  because  the  material  structure,  which  re- 
presents them,  is  kept  in  good  repair  by  the  exercise  of 
the  will  in  putting  it  in  order  and  guarding  it  against 
decay. 

The  third  constituent  of  memory  is  the  reproduction  of 
ideas,  possibly  also  of  sensations  which  were  previously 
in  the  consciousness.  This  is  effected  by  a  pull  upon  the 
train  of  associated  ideas,  which  ideas,  by  consequence, 
come  trooping  into  the  region  of  consciousness.  Of 
course,  only  an  infinitesimal  part  of  our  knowledge  is  at 
any  one  time  within  the  sphere  of  consciousness;  and  the 
aid  we  derive  from  memory  in  the  ordinary  business  of 
life,  and  as  well  also  in  processes  of  reasoning,  is  depend- 
ent, in  large  measure,  upon  the  promptness  and  accuracy 


418  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

with  which  past  experiences  can  be  reproduced  when 
needed.  What  has  been  learned  is  probably  always  in 
memory,  though  often  in  very  shadowy  outline;  and  is 
always  known,  provided  we  can  immediately  reproduce  it 
as  occasion  may  require.  Some  of  our  garnered  know- 
ledge, especially  that  which  we  frequently  employ,  is 
within  easy  reach;  some,  we  are  sure,  we  have  in  the  re- 
cesses of  memory,  but  we  are  not  able  at  present  to  pro- 
duce it,  having  seemingly  forgotten  where  we  deposited 
it,  and  how  we  labeled  it;  some,  we  conjecture,  was 
never  in  mind,  though  circumstances  may  prove  that  it 
was  and  still  is. 

This  reproduction  of  ideas  may  be  strictly  automatic. 
This  is  manifest,  because,  as  numerous  instances  prove, 
the  scenes,  the  incidents,  and  the  ideas  of  early  infancy, 
though  entirely  forgotten,  apparently  never  within  the 
sphere  of  consciousness,  may  be  reproduced  on  revisiting 
the  home  in  which  our  wondering  eyes  first  received 
impressions  from  the  external  world;  nay,  instances  can 
be  furnished  in  which  persons  in  advanced  life  have  had 
pictures  presented  to  the  mind  which  they  recognized  as 
reproductions  of  past  states  of  consciousness  though 
unable  to  explain  when  or  where  they  received  them, 
being  greatly  astonished  to  learn  from  others  that  they 
were  reproductions  of  scenes  upon  which  their  eyes 
rested  in  early  infancy.  Of  course,  in  all  such  cases  the 
reproduction  is  purely  automatic,  being  occasioned  by 
mere  presence  amid  the  surroundings  of  infancy,  or  by 
some  accidental  occurrence  which  started  a  train  of  ideas 
leading  to  the  revival  of  traces  which  were  still  in  the 
brain,  though  unaccompanied  with  the  ability  to  deter- 
mine the  time  and  the  circumstances  which  attended 
their  formation. 

In    like    manner,    during    fevers,    persons   have   been 


AUTOMATIC   ACTIVITY   OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       419 

known  to  repeat  ideas  and  quote  passages,  and  even  speak 
foreign  languages,  which  in  hours  of  health  they  were 
totally  unable  to  do,  the  automatic  machinery  reproducing 
that  which,  though  once  within  the  region  of  consciousness, 
perhaps  sixty  years  before,  has  long  since  been  so 
completely  forgotten  that  no  effort  of  the  will  could  have 
brought  it  again  within  consciousness;  indeed,  cases  are 
on  record  in  which  persons,  during  the  delirium  of  fever, 
have  reproduced  ideas  which  must  have  been  impressed 
upon  the  memory  when  they  were  totally  unconscious, 
unless  the  unconsciousness  was  only  seemingly  complete. 

This  at  least  is  conceded,  the  reproduction  of  ideas 
may  be  strictly  automatic,  purely  physical  changes 
effecting  not  only  what  volition  may  sometimes  effect, 
but  in  some  instances  reproducing  what  volition  is  unable 
to  reproduce. 

Nevertheless,  the  will  has  a  powerful  indirect  influence 
over  the  machinery  by  which  ideas  are  reproduced  from 
the  store-house  of  memory.  Recollection  is  in  fact  the 
exercise  of  the  will  over  this  machinery,  setting  it  in 
operation  for  the  discovery  of  ideas  which  we  have  once 
possessed,  and  know  we  have,  and  which  we  now  want. 
Conceding  that  we  cannot  call  up  the  coveted  idea  by  a 
direct  volition,  it  is  still  true  that  by  riveting  attention 
upon  ideas  known  to  be  associated  with  the  idea  we  are 
in  search  of,  the  will  can  order,  and  in  most  instances  can 
secure,  its  presentation  in  the  presence-chamber  of  the 
ego.  If,  after  following  the  series  of  ideas  which  the 
known  idea  calls  up,  we  fail  in  discovering  our  missing 
child,  we  choose  another  leading  idea  and  examine 
minutely  every  entrant  within  the  door  of  consciousness, 
continuing  to  repeat  the  process  till  in  the  ideas  which 
pass  under  the  vision  of  the  ego,  presented  by  the 
automatic  machinery,  we  recognize  the  features  of  the 


420  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

truant  whose  hiding-place  was  such  an  obscure  corner 
that  we  were  compelled  to  pass  along  several  pathways 
ere  we  could  discover  him  and  drag  him  into  the  light 
again. 

The  fourth  constituent  of  memory  is  recognition.  The 
reproduced  idea  must  be  recognized  as  a  revived  experi- 
ence. Without  this  recognition  there  would  be  no  past 
for  us,  only  a  teeming  present.  Neither  would  there  be 
any  sense  of  personal  identity,  the  ego  of  the  present 
being  totally  unconscious  of  an  existence  continuing 
from  the  past. 

This  recognition  of  reproduced  ideas  and  states  as 
resurrected  experiences  is  essentially  automatic.  Of 
course,  we  cannot  will  to  recognize  them.  We  recognize 
them  spontaneously,  or  we  do  not  recognize  them  at  all; 
still,  by  an  act  of  will,  we  may  keep  them  under  the 
mental  view  while  we  examine  them,  noting  resemblance 
and  dissimilarity.  There  is,  it  is  true,  no  volitional  recog- 
nition of  reproduced  ideas;  but  by  fixing  attention  upon 
them  we  can  decide  whether  they  are  accurate  reproduc- 
tions. Sometimes,  in  fixing  the  inward  gaze  upon  them, 
we  recognize  them  as  perfectly  correct  revivals;  some- 
times, as  only  partial  revivals;  sometimes,  as  little  better 
than  gross  perversions,  though  we  are  not  able  to  specify 
the  respects  in  which  they  differ  from  their  originals. 

8.  The  Will: — Having  seen  that  there  are  cogent 
reasons  why  we  should  frankly  admit  that  not  alone  in 
animals  but  also  in  man,  and  even  in  his  perceptions,  his 
ideas,  his  emotions,  and  his  memory — as  in  his  muscular 
movements — there  is  an  automatic  activity  as  well  as  a 
volitional,  we  come  now  to  consider  the  question  of 
man's  freedom. 

According  to  Dr.  Carpenter,  "Will  is  a  determinate 
effort  to  carry  out  a  purpose  previously  conceived."     This 


AUTOMATIC   ACTIVITY   OF    THE    CEREBRUM.       421 

definition,  it  is  believed,  ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  en- 
tirely satisfactory.  Whence  this  previous  purpose  ?  Does 
not  purpose  imply  will  ?  Is  there  will  prior  to  will  ?  or  is 
this  previous  purpose  an  effect  of  automatic  machinery 
acting  antecedent  to  the  possibility  of  volition  ?  That 
he  does  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  teaching  that  the 
term  will  is  a  convenient  synonym  for  the  outcome  of  an 
automatic  activity  resulting  from  physical  changes  is 
evident,  because  he  presents  a  series  of  arguments  to 
prove  that  "  the  will  is  something  essentially  different 
from  the  general  resultant  of  the  automatic  activity  of 
the  mind;  "  indeed,  he  regards  it  as  a  "  power  which  being 
completely  independent  of  physical  conditions,  is  ca- 
pable of  acting  against  the  preponderance  of  motives." 
It  is  possible  to  accept  the  conclusion,  and  inasmuch  as 
there  is  every  conceivable  measure  of  volitional  power, 
from  simple  volitional  permission  continued  without  our 
knowledge  after  being  consciously  initiated,  to  an 
efficient  force  directly  exerted  in  the  production  of 
coveted  results,  it  is  probably  safer  to  acknowledge  that 
science  is  as  yet  incompetent  to  furnish  a  definition  of  the 
term,  not  being  at  present  in  possession  of  all  the  facts, 
and  consequently  being  more  likely  to  produce  miscon- 
ceptions than  to  promote  clearness. 


CHAPTER   XXIII. 

THE   FREEDOM   OF  THE  WILL. 

Before  entering  upon  the  question  of  man's  freedom,  it 
may  be  well  to  enumerate  the  propositions  which  may 
be  regarded  as  sufficiently  well  established  to  answer  as 
a  foundation  for  future  structures. 

i.  In  a  healthful  organism,  the  will,  under  all  ordinary 
circumstances,  is  capable  of  putting  into  activity  those 
muscles  whose  movements  are  necessary  to  the  execu- 
tion of  self-formed  purposes;  indeed,  is  capable  of  put- 
ting into  activity  all  muscles  except  those  termed  invol- 
untary, viz.,  those  of  the  heart,  the  iris,  the  coatings  of 
the  stomach,  and  the  intestines. 

2.  In  a  well-disciplined  mind,  the  will  is  capable  of  so 
far  determining  the  motives  which  shall  effectually  con- 
trol its  decisions  that  it  may  be  properly  regarded  as  a 
self-determining  agent. 

3.  From  the  emotions  which  momentarily  well  up  in 
the  mind,  the  will  is  ordinarily  capable  of  selecting  those 
which  shall  furnish  determining  impulses  resulting  in 
courses  which  the  judgment  pronounces  advantageous. 

4.  In  the  formation  of  ideas,  the  will  can  decide  which 
shall  remain  under  the  vision  of  the  ego,  and  may  thus 
determine  the  succession  to  no  inconsiderable  extent;  and 
is  also  capable  indirectly  of  giving  potency  to  ideas  which 
might  otherwise  have  but  little  cogency. 

5.  From  the  treasures  lodged  in  memory,  the  will  can 


THE    FREEDOM   OF    THE    WILL.  423 

procure  what  the  ego  needs  for  present  use,  procuring  it, 
however,  by  an  indirect  method;  viz.,  by  setting  the 
machinery  in  motion  which  shall  reproduce  ideas  by  vir- 
tue of  their  nexuses,  and  then  choosing  from  the  long- 
train  whatever  ideas  it  pleases  to  employ. 

6.  Volition  manifests  itself  by  a  determination  of  blood 
to  that  portion  of  the  cortex  of  the  hemispheres  which  is 
concerned  in  the  generation  and  transmission  of  any  par- 
ticular idea  to  the  sensorium,  thereby  determining  the 
extent  of  the  influence  exerted  by  the  idea  upon  the 
conscious  ego. 

7.  The  blood,  thus  sent  in  increased  quantity  to  some 
nerve-center,  not  only  supplies  the  material  from  which 
the  nerve-substance  receives  compensation  for  the  "waste" 
resulting  from  activity,  making  provision  for  the  possi- 
bilities of  future  energy;  but  also  furnishes  the  oxygen 
which  converts  the  energy  accumulated  during  the  past 
into  force  acting  in  the  present. 

8.  The  production  and  transmission  of  this  will-force 
are  processes  resembling  in  many  respects  the  generation 
and  transmission  of  an  electric  current,  the  discharge 
taking  place,  and  the  circuit  being  rendered  complete, 
when  the  tension  of  the  nerve-center  has  reached  a  cer- 
tain intensity.  Consequently,  as  Dr.  Ferrier  has  proved 
by  numerous  experiments,  electrical  stimulation  of  the 
cortical  centers  causes  in  the  voluntary  muscles  a  series 
of  movements  which  can  scarcely  be  distinguished  from 
movements  produced  by  direct  volition. 

9.  The  amount  of  potential  energy  thus  converted  into 
actual  energy,  though  primarily  dependent  upon  the  in- 
tensity of  the  volitional  determination,  is  secondarily  de- 
pendent upon  the  amount  of  scarlet-colored  blood  at  the 
time  in  the  nerve-center,  that  is,  it  is  dependent  upon  the 
amount  of  oxygen  present  at  the  given  moment;  which, 


424  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

in  turn,  is  conditioned  upon  the  general  vigor  of  the  con- 
stitution, will-power  being  consequently  more  potent  at 
some  periods  than  at  others. 

10.  A  diminution  in  the  amount  of  blood  sent  to  the 
nerve-center  at  any  given  moment,  though  not  neces- 
sarily diminishing  the  inherent  force  of  the  volitional  de- 
termination, does  diminish  the  power  of  executing  the 
will's  commands.  One  may  will  to  do  what  he  is  at  pres- 
ent unable  to  accomplish,  because  the  organism,  per- 
haps owing  to  feeble  volitions  in  the  past,  has  not  grown 
to  the  power  of  executing  all  volitional  determinations; 
but,  as  the  physical  organism  gradually  prepares  itself  to 
do  what  it  is  repeatedly  called  upon  to  do  and  vigor- 
ously endeavors  to  do,  the  time  may  come  when  com- 
mands of  the  will  at  present  beyond  the  power  of  execu- 
tion may  be  readily  executed.  To  him  who  wisely  uses 
the  power  he  has,  more  will  be  given. 

It  follows,  it  is  believed,  that  man  may  be  held  re- 
sponsible both  for  the  opinions  he  entertains,  and  for  the 
course  of  conduct  he  pursues.  Being  a  free  agent,  and  be- 
ing justly  accountable  for  what  he  is  as  well  as  for  what  he 
does,  he  is  accountable  to  a  Higher  Power  for  all  his  acts, 
even  for  those  which  at  the  time  they  were  performed  he 
could  not  have  rendered  essentially  different.  He  is  not 
as  innocent  in  reference  to  his  beliefs  as  he  is  in  refer- 
ence to  the  size  of  the  pupil  in  his  eye,  though  he  can 
even  increase  or  diminish  the  size  of  this  by  a  volitional 
determination  to  remain  in  darkness  or  in  the  full  glare 
of  noon-day.  He  is  not  as  guiltless  in  reference  to  his 
conduct  as  he  is  in  reference  to  the  twitchings  of  his 
stomach,  though  even  these  may  be  determined  in  meas- 
ure by  the  kind  of  food  he  feeds  upon.  He  is  in  posses- 
sion of  a  faculty,  a  self-determining  will,  which,  though  at 
any  given   time  incompetent,   it   may   be,  to  withhold 


THE    FREEDOM   OF    THE    WILL.  425 

assent  from  propositions  which  are  as  false  as  they  are 
pernicious,  and  though  equally  incompetent  to  restrain 
its  possessor  from  the  commission  of  deeds  that  are  as 
detrimental  to  the  interests  of  society  as  they  are  to  his 
own  well-being,  is  nevertheless  competent  to  the  pro- 
duction of  an  organism  which  will  enable  him  to  choose 
truth  in  preference  to  error  and  virtue  in  preference  to 
crime. 

Responsibility  for  beliefs'. — What  one  shall  accept  in 
the  present  as  an  opinion  meriting  an  intellectual  assent 
is  dependent  upon  three  conditions,  for  each  of  which  he 
may  be  justly  held  responsible.  These  conditions  are:  (i) 
The  opinions  already  accepted  as  beliefs,  for  if  the  prof- 
fered proposition  is  clearly  inconsistent  with  these,  it  is 
likely  to  be  instantaneously  rejected,  the  rejecter  being, 
however,  strictly  responsible  for  the  presence  in  his 
mind  of  those  imperious  occupants  who  summarily  eject 
their  foes.  (2)  The  disposition  or  indisposition  to  heed 
those  arguments  which  may  prepare  a  receptacle  for  a 
proposition  which,  on  first  presentation,  ran  violently 
against  existing  prejudices;  but  which  may  come  to  receive 
a  cordial  welcome,  and  even  the  approval  of  conscience 
in  ejecting  some  opinions  which  were  never  worthy  a  place 
in  the  intellectual  temple  sacred  to  truth — for  which  dis- 
position one  is  clearly  responsible.  (3)  The  exercise 
of  will-power  in  fixing  attention  upon  reasons  and 
motives,  which,  being  thereby  augmented  or  diminished 
in  cogency,  are  capable  of  determining  with  almost  un- 
erring certaintv  what  conclusion  shall  be  reached  and 
what  course  of  conduct  shall  be  decided  upon — most  per- 
sons being  capable  of  believing  what  they  have  resolved 
to  believe,  and  of  deciding  to  do  what  they  wish  to  do. 

This  indirect  method  of  securing  acoveted  conclusion, 
powerful  as  it  is  when  one  is  weighing  the  arguments  of 


426  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

an  antagonist,  is  still  more  potent  when  he  is  engaged  in 
balancing  the  pros  and  cons  which  are  products  of  his 
own  reasoning  faculties;  for  he  is  less  likely  to  be  called 
to  an  account  for  ignoring  or  insulting  his  own  children 
than  for  belittling  the  children  of  others,  even  as  he  feels 
more  pride  in  magnifying  the  boy  who  calls  him  father 
than  in  magnifying  another's  son.  Consequently,  the 
process  of  reasoning  which  we  carry  on  within  our  own 
minds,  with  a  view  of  deciding  what  we  shall  believe,  is 
more  likely  to  result  in  error  than  are  those  processes 
which  have  to  defend  themselves  before  the  tribunal  of 
another's  reason. 

Responsibility  for  conduct: — Without  entering  upon 
a  discussion  whether  or  not  acts  are  invariably  a  re- 
sult of  the  preponderance  of  motives,  it  may  suffice  to 
present  evidence  of  man's  accountability  for  the  power 
exerted  over  him  by  the  several  motives  which  ordinarily 
impel  to  overt  acts.  If  success  crowns  this  endeavor,  the 
argument  in  favor  of  human  liberty  will  be  in  no  way 
weakened  by  the  concession  that  at  a  given  time  and 
under  prevailing  motives,  the  individual  could  not  have 
acted  differently;  nor  will  this  temporary  necessity  rob 
him  of  merit  in  reference  to  deserving  conduct,  nor  re- 
lieve him  from  censure  in  regard  to  sinful  practices. 
What  he  is,  as  well  as  what  he  docs,  has  merit  or  de- 
merit. Since  what  he  is,  is  a  consequent  of  what  he  was; 
and  what  he  was,  was  in  large  measure  a  resultant  of 
antecedent  volitional  determinations,  present  ability 
is  not  the  measure  of  present  responsibility;  nor  are 
present  acts  meritless  because,  as  a  result  of  past  acts 
of  self-denial,  he  grew  to  a  condition  in  which  the  will 
from  inward  necessity  impelled  to  the  pursuit  of  right 
courses. 

Of  the  motives  which  influence  human   conduct   the 


THE    FREEDOM    OF    THE     WILL.  427 

following  are  the  most  potent,  in  each  of  which,  as  may  be 
seen,  the  will  has  a  self  determining  power. 

I.  Habits: — These,  it  is  conceded,  almost  invariably 
impel  to  similar  acts  under  similar  circumstances.  They 
furnish  a  motive  which  the  will  can  scarcely  master — 
possibly  is  powerless  to  conquer.  The  habit  of  doing 
what  is  regarded  as  right  may  become  so  powerful  as  to 
be  nearly  unconquerable.  The  habit  of  indulging  a  par- 
ticular appetite,  however  degrading  it  may  be,  engenders 
a  motive  which  perhaps  only  an  iron  will  can  ignore.  Be 
it  so.  It  was  not  always  thus,  however.  Who  is  respon- 
sible for  this  altered  condition  ?  By  permission,  or  by 
direct  determination,  the  will  has  been  instrumental  in 
creating  this  imperious  tyrant.  Even  if  you  assume  that 
the  individual  is  now  utterly  powerless,  you  may  not  legit- 
imately assert  that  he  is  irresponsible — unless  it  be  that 
species  of  irresponsibility  for  which  one  is  responsible,  an 
inability  to  do  otherwise  than  wrong  in  the  present  be- 
cause he  has  persisted  in  doing  wrong  in  the  past. 

But  we  are  confronted  with  the  assertion,  Habits  may 
be  inherited  from  ancestors;  and  certainly  for  the  motives 
thence  arising  one  cannot  be  held  responsible.  True, 
habits  may  be  transmitted.  True,  one  may  be  power- 
fully disposed  to  yield  to  these  inherited  tendencies.  It 
has  not  been  proved,  however,  that  they  are  so  potent,  if 
resisted  with  the  full  power  of  the  will  from  early  life,  as 
to  render  their  possessor  helpless.  The  powerful  ten- 
dency in  the  human  organism  to  grow  to  the  acts  per- 
formed, and  not  to  the  impulses  which  either  find  no  ex- 
pression or  an  expression  in  defiance  of  will-power  actively 
exerted,  renders  it  possible  to  form  an  antagonistic  habit 
which  can  eventually  master  an  impulse,  especially  if,  as 
is  possible,  an  ideational  state  is  produced  and  a  delib- 
erate judgment  is  formed    which  generate     a  powerful 


428  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

counter  motive,  conscience,  meanwhile,  rendering  efficient 
assistance,  and  the  will  exerting  itself,  not  only  directly 
but  also  indirectly,  by  calling  attention  to  the  conse- 
quences of  the  proposed  course  of  conduct. 

2.  Emotions: — These,  arising  automatically,  may  impel 
to  acts  which  give  promise  of  present  gratification,  or 
may  restrain  from  acts  which,  it  is  feared,  may  be  fol- 
lowed by  pain.  But  as  already  seen,  the  will  has  the 
power  of  determining  which  of  many  existing  motives 
shall  be  allowed  to  have  dominance.  Consequently,  re- 
sponsibility does  not  cease;  and  when  to  this  power  of 
determining  which  motives  shall  be  permitted  to  have 
the  ascendency,  the  further  power  is  added — unquestion- 
ably possessed  by  the  will — of  calling  up  new  and  power- 
ful motives  through  the  medium  of  ideational  states,  it 
becomes  evident  that  automatic  emotions  do  not  destroy 
responsibility. 

3.  A  Sense  of  duty : — Conscience,  it  is  true,  is  to  a  large 
extent  a  manufactured  article,  being  at  any  given  time  a 
resultant  of  the  fallible  judgments  formed  on  all  moral 
questions,  many  of  which  judgments  are  incessantly 
changing,  and  many  of  which  questions  are  continually 
presenting  themselves  under  new  aspects.  Consequently, 
even  the  motive  which  presents  itself  from  an  imperative 
sense  of  duty  can  neither  rob  one  of  merit  for  doing  right, 
nor  exonerate  him  from  censure  for  doing  wrong.  A  cor- 
rect judgment  in  reference  to  what  is  proper  in  any  given 
set  of  circumstances  surely  does  not  render  goodness  un- 
worthy of  commendation;  nor  does  the  conviction  that 
wrong  is  right  leave  crime  as  deserving  as  virtue.  Even 
admitting  that  conscience  at  any  given  time  is  the  spon- 
taneous result  of  all  the  moral  judgments  previously 
formed,  or  at  present  potent,  it  does  not  follow  that  one 
is  irresponsible  for  its  decisions.     Irresponsibility  in  the 


THE    FREEDOM    OF    THE     WILL.  429 

present  would  imply  complete  irresponsibility  in  reference 
to  the  moral  judgments  formed  in  the  past,  as  well  as  in 
reference  to  those  formed  in  the  present,  and  to  the  rel- 
ative importance  assigned  to  each — in  each  of  which 
class  of  acts  we  are  conscious  of  freedom.  All  men  be- 
lieve that  of  judgments  formed  in  the  past  one  or  more 
might  have  been  different — quite  probably  believe  they 
should  have  been,  which  implies  that  they  could  have 
been.  Of  the  judgments  now  formed,  they  admit  that 
many  are  founded  on  uncertain  data,  and  are  liable  to  be 
reversed  any  moment,  which  they  deem  themselves  capa- 
ble of  doing  and  indeed  likely  to  do.  They  also  feel 
themselves  competent,  by  the  exercise  of  the  will,  of  in- 
tensifying the  impression  made  by  one  judgment  over 
that  made  by  another,  even  though  the  intrinsic  merit  of 
the  two  may  be  apparently  equal.  By  fixing  the  atten- 
tion upon  one,  to  the  neglect  of  another,  it  maybe  made 
to  assume  an  importance  out  of  all  proportion  to  its  real 
cogency. 

Thus,  whatever  may  be  the  product  of  the  automatic 
machinery — if  it  is  automatic — which  furnishes  decisions 
on  moral  questions,  for  that  product  man  may  be  justly 
held  responsible.  If  it  is  a  fabric  from  a  self-acting  ma- 
chine, it  is  from  a  machine  constructed  under  the  effec- 
tive or  permissive  decrees  of  an  unfettered  will. 

4.  Motives  arising  out  of  religious  beliefs: — As  men 
are  responsible  for  their  religious  beliefs,  even  though  at 
the  present  these  maybe  a  legitimate  outgrowth  of  opin- 
ions previously  acquired,  so  also  are  they  responsible  for 
the  motives  thence  arising. 

Every  person's  conduct  is  determined  in  measure  by 
his  conception  of  Deity;  and  every  person's  conception 
of  Deity  is  the  product  of  his  own  self-determined  thought. 
No  two  worship  the  same  God.     Each  has  a  conception 


430  THEI3M  AND    EVOLUTION. 

of  his  own,  though  he  may  designate  it  by  the  same 
term. 

Men's  conduct  is  determined  in  part  by  their  hopes; 
but  the  foundation  of  these  is  laid  in  each  person's  voli- 
tional acts. 

Again:  our  acts  are  influenced  by  our  fears,  which  are 
products  of  the  relation  between  our  intellectual  beliefs 
and  our  volitional  determinations. 

Conduct  is  determined,  not  infrequently,  by  the  regard 
we  have  to  the  happiness  of  others;  and  this  is  determined 
by  the  views  we  entertain  and  by  the  measure  of  disin- 
terestedness we  have  tutored  ourselves  to  practice. 

The  will  may  be  regarded  as  possessing  the  following 
powers: — 

i.  The  power  of  initiating  activities,  both  muscular 
and  mental. 

2.  The  power,  after  an  activity  is  initiated,  of  continu- 
ing it  without  the  conscious  knowledge  of  the  ego. 

3.  The  power,  when  no  motives  are  present  to  the 
mind,  at  least  when  none  are  consciously  present,  of  act- 
ing in  accordance  with  fixed  principles,  which  have  been 
pronounced  worthy  of  determining  the  conduct;  of  the 
influence  of  which  principles  the  mind  may  be,  for  the 
time  being,  entirely  unconscious. 

4.  The  power,  in  the  presence  of  motives  inviting  to 
the  abandonment  of  fixed  principles,  of  calling  up  new 
motives  and  of  selecting  and  intensifying  those  which  the 
judgment  declares  most  weighty;  thus,  by  magnifying 
some  and  minifying  others,  the  will  is  capable,  by  the 
simple  control  of  attention,  of  giving  color  to  the  con- 
clusion reached  and  of  deciding  the  course  of  conduct  to 
be  pursued. 

5.  The  power,  in  most  cases — presumably  in  all  cases, 
if  will-power   were    duly   cultivated — of  restraining    its 


THE    FREEDOM    OF    THE    WILL.  481 

possessor  from  any  overt  acts  till  an  opportunity  has  been 
allowed  for  further  consideration,  during  which  period  of 
suspended  action  the  will  may  augment  or  diminish  the 
force  of  motives  which  either  impel  to,  or  deter  from,  the 
commission  of  the  contemplated  act.  This  demand  for 
"a  stay  of  proceedings,"  formed  originally  upon  a  delib- 
erate conviction  that  hasty  action  under  unreasoning 
impulses  is  liable  to  prove  unwise,  becomes,  by  being 
frequently  made,  a  confirmed  habit,  which  in  many  in- 
stances greatly  aids  in  ascertaining  which  way  duty  lies. 

6.  The  power  of  confronting  its  possessor  with  the 
probable  consequences  of  his  act — consequences  near 
and  remote. 

7.  The  power  of  impressing  its  possessor  with  a  keen 
remembrance  of  the  injurious  results  of  acts  performed 
under  impulses  unsanctioned  by  judgment. 

8.  The  power  of  forcing  its  possessor  to  note  his  weak- 
nesses, as  well  as  the  parts  of  his  character  which  are 
strongly  defended. 

9.  The  power  of  intensifying  the  verdict  of  the  moral 
sense,  to  the  effect  that  the  deliberate  decisions  of  the 
will  have  been  too  often  disregarded  in  the  past,  and 
should  be  obeyed  henceforth. 

10.  The  power  of  giving  to  certain  feelings  such  a 
measure  of  intensity  as  shall  render  obedience  to  voli- 
tional decisions  much  easier. 

Consequently,  in  a  properly  constituted  human  being, 
in  good  physical  and  mental  condition,  every  activity  is 
measurably  under  the  control  of  the  will,  either  directly 
or  indirectly,  at  least  every  activity  that  is  concerned,  to 
any  controlling  extent,  in  his  moral  well-being,  even  the 
automatic  machinery  being  so  far  subject  to  his  control 
as  to  leave  him  responsible  for  the  beliefs  he  entertains 
and  for  the  course  of  conduct  he  pursues. 


CHAPTER   XXIV. 

SCIENCE  AND   THE   BIBLE;    NO   CONFLICT. 

To  deem  it  possible  that  there  may  be  a  lack  of  har- 
mony between  an  accurate  knowledge  of  natural  laws  \ 
and  a  correct  interpretation  of  a  supernatural  revelation 
is  to  assume  that  there  may  be  more  than  one  originating 
cause  in  the  universe,  or  that  the  First  Cause  is  charge- 
able with  duplicity  of  purpose,  if  indeed  He  may  not  be 
guilty  of  designing  to  deceive  His  intelligent  creatures. 
Reason  affirms  that  more  than  one  originating  cause  is 
inconceivable.  In  this  opinion  physicists  and  meta- 
physicians concur.  Nor  is  human  reason  less  emphatic 
in  asserting  that  unity  of  design  must  characterize  the 
works  of  nature,  whatever  may  have  been  their  origin; 
and  must  be  a  characteristic  of  the  First  Cause  of  all 
things,  if  a  First  Cause  exists.  Conflicting  purposes 
imply  imperfection.  They  must  arise  from  lack  of  know- 
ledge, or  from  feebleness  of  will;  neither  of  which  is  con- 
ceivable in  an  Unconditioned  Personality,  to  which,  as  a 
Primal  Cause,  reason  is  forced  to  refer  all  existences. 
And  to  imagine  that  the  Ultimate  of  all  ultimates  could 
possibly  design  to  deceive  His  intelligent  creatures  is  to 
imagine  that  He  could  be  less  than  the  sum  of  all  good- 
ness— that  the  stream  can  rise  higher  than  the  fountain. 
Accordingly,  he  who  has  faith  in  a  divine  revelation  (the 
existence  of  which  is  highly  probable,  if  we  conceive  of 
God    as    having    regard    to    the    well-being    of  sentient 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         433 

creatures)  need  have  no   apprehensions   in   reference  to 
the  progress  of  science.     Scientific  investigation  cannot 
possibly   obscure  the  light  of  revelation.     Only  philos- 
ophy falsely  so  called  can  produce  this  result,  and  its  ef- 
fects must  be  temporary  in  their  nature.     Theology  has  i 
a  province  of  its  own,  and  a  right  to  exact  obedience  to  J 
its  laws.     A  supernatural  revelation  is  not  amenable  to/ 
the  laws  of  physics. 

Nor  is  the  scientist  called  upon  to  assume  a  hos-. 
tile  attitude  towards  the  teachings  of  Scripture.  These,! 
properly  interpreted,  can  by  no  possibility  retard  the 
progress  of  physical  science.  The  student  of  nature  may 
fear,  and  has  cause  to  fear,  that  a  false  exegesis  of  Scrip- 
ture may  antagonize  the  established  facts  of  science, 
though  the  effects  of  such  antagonism  must  be  tran- 
sitory. Certainly  he  has  no  cause  to  apprehend  any 
disastrous  results  from  just  interpretations  of  a  divine 
revelation.  As  long  as  the  scientist  is  left  free  to  explain 
everything  that  is  graven  on  the  accessible  leaves  of 
nature's  great  volume,  he  may  safely  accord  to  the  theo- 
logian the  liberty  of  explaining  that  which  is  contained 
in  a  written  revelation.  Why  should  either  presume  to 
invade  the  province  of  the  other  ?  Neither  province  is 
so  restricted  as  to  leave  its  citizens  without  broad  fields 
awaiting  more  successful  cultivation. 

It  is  safe,  therefore,  to  affirm  that  the  two  volumes, 
Nature*  and  the  Bible,  must  be  in  perfect  harmony. 
Being  expressions  of  the  same  will,  no  conflict  is  possible. 
Accordingly,  when  the  interpretations  given  to  either  are 
in  seeming  antagonism  with  the  teachings  of  the  other,  it 
is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  either  the  theologian  or 
the  scientist  is  misreading  the  volume  committed  to  his 
care.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  deny  that  each  has  frequently 
fallen    into   serious    errors.      Scientists    have;   and    they 


434  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

frankly  admit  it.  Theologians  have;  and  it  would  be 
folly  for  them  to  deny  it.  Whilst  there  may,  perhaps, 
be  some  measure  of  impropriety  in  enumerating  the 
mistaken  inferences  of  scientists,  there  is  nothing  unbe- 
coming in  acknowledging  that  theologians  have  been 
indiscreet  in  hastily — often  dogmatically — opposing  the 
conclusions  reached  by  scientific  investigation.  Unnec- 
essary antagonism  has  been  produced.  In  some  instances 
it  has  become  but  too  plainly  evident  that  they  who  have 
undertaken  a  defence  of  Scripture  are  but  poorly  qualified 
for  the  task,  seriously  weakening  a  cause  which  they 
hoped  to  strengthen.  Ardor  is  well:  argument  is  better. 
Religious  faith  is  grand:  logical  force  must  conquer  the 
field  ere  faith  can  erect  her  majestic  spire.  Reasoning 
steeped  in  prejudice  has  no  weight  with  the  unbiased. 
It  is  a  misfortune  when,  as  has  frequently  happened, 
defenders  of  Scripture  are  compelled  to  accept  conclu- 
sions which  they  once  pronounced  glaringly  atheistic. 
It  proves  but  too  conclusively  that  they  were  under  the 
guidance  of  strong  prejudice.  Such  was  the  case  with 
those  theologians  who  regarded  the  doctrine  of  the 
earth's  revolution  upon  its  axis  as  inconsistent  with  the 
declarations  of  Scripture,  and  certainly  heretical;  with 
those  who  viewed  the  theory  of  gravitation  as  decidedly 
atheistic  in  its  tendencies,  and  Newton  as  giving  comfort 
to  the  enemies  of  Scripture;  with  those  who,  ere  a  new 
interpretation  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  was  forced 
upon  the  church,  persisted  in  pronouncing  the  teachings 
of  geology  antagonistic  to  the  Bible. 

Mr.  Spencer  has  well  said,  "Just  as  though  unaware 
that  its  central  position  was  impregnable,  religion  has 
obstinately  held  every  outpost  long  after  it  was  obviously 
indefensible."  "  Obliged  to  abandon  one  by  one  the  su- 
perstitions it  once  tenaciously  held,  and  daily  finding  its 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         435 

cherished  beliefs  more  and  more  shaken,  religion  shows 
a  secret  fear  that  all  things  may  some  day  be  explained; 
and  thus  itself  betrays  a  lurking  doubt  whether  that 
Incomprehensible  Cause  of  which  it  is  conscious,  is  really 
incomprehensible."  * 

There  is  reason  to  fear  that  this  folly  may  repeat 
itself.  Some  there  are,  who  seem  to  imagine  that  unless 
the  antiquity  of  man  can  be  compressed  within  the  limits 
of  Archbishop  Usher's  chronology,  supernatural  revel- 
ation is  seriously  imperiled;  though,  to  prove  that  there 
is  a  scientific  chronology  in  Scripture  prior  to  the  found- 
ing of  Solomon's  temple  would  require  more  learning 
than  this  age  can  command,  and  to  retain  faith  in  the 
unity  of  the  human  family  while  refusing  to  lengthen  the 
period  of  human  history  is  daily  becoming  more  difficult 
— in  the  opinion  of  many  is  now  an  impossibility,  more 
time  being  imperatively  demanded  for  the  production  of 
differences  which  exist  between  the  several  races  of  men. 
Nor  is  it  politic  to  ignore  the  fact,  that  though  some  are 
violently  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  the  transmutation  of 
species — deeming  it  absolutely  impossible  that  all  organ- 
isms should  have  developed  from  a  few  parental  forms, 
possibly  from  a  single  primordial  germ, — it  is  illogical  to 
characterize  the  theory  as  atheistic,  since  it  is  impossible 
to  see  why  it  should  be  regarded  as  a  less  noble  con- 
ception of  God  to  believe  that  he  may  have  created  one 
or  two  germs  capable  of  evolving  all  living  existences, 
than  to  believe  that  he  created  each  species  indepen- 
dently. If  he  chose  to  produce  all  plant-forms  and  all 
animal  organisms  by  evolution  from  one  primordial  germ, 
assuredly  no  one  is  at  liberty  to  consider  His  exis- 
tence less  real,  His  personality  less  marked,  His  will  less 
powerful,    His   wisdom  less  perfect,   His  self-sufficiency 

*  First  Principles ;  p.  101. 


436  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

less  complete,  His  nature  less  unconditioned.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  theistic  evolution  may  be  regarded  by  the 
great  mass  of  thinkers,  in  subsequent  generations,  as  a 
nobler  conception  of  God  than  that  which  prevails  in  the 
present  day.  If  it  succeeds,  as  it  may,  in  commending 
itself  to  the  unbiased  human  intellect,  theology  will  be 
in  no  way  hampered.  If  religion  has  merited  the  censure 
passed  upon  it  by  Mr.  Spencer,  of  having  ignored  her 
immense  debt  to  science,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  in  future 
she  may  frankly  acknowledge  the  extent  of  her  indebted- 
ness; on  the  other  hand,  if,  as  some  theologians  are 
disposed  to  assert,  science  has  somewhat  irreverently 
handled  the  sacred  ark  of  the  eternal  covenant,  it  is  to 
be  hoped  that  she  will  henceforth  walk  softly  as  she 
approaches  the  presence-chamber  of  the  Unfathomable. 
Whilst  expressing  the  fervent  desire  that  the  latter  may 
be  delivered  from  the  impenetrable  darkness  which  must 
result  from  the  belief  that  man  can  know  absolutely 
nothing  in  reference  to  the  nature  of  the  Ultimate 
Reality,  it  is  honorable  also  to  desire,  with  equal  fer- 
vency, that  the  former  may  manifest  becoming  humility, 
as  the  attempt  is  made  to  determine  the  incommunica- 
ble attributes  of  that  Infinite  Personality  whose  power 
is  manifested  in  every  form  of  existence,  from  the  grain 
of  sand  to  the  most  intellectual  of  earth's  honored  sons. 

Faith  may  be  strengthened  by  examining  the  more 
important  harmonies  which  exist  between  science  and 
revelation,  harmonies  which  no  reasoning  can  effectually 
destroy. 

I.  The   Divine  Will  is  the  originating  cause 

OF    ALL   THINGS. 

This  is  unquestionably  the  Biblical  conception  of  God. 
He  is  infinite.  He  is  omnipotent.  He  is  omniscient. 
He  is  benevolent.     These  attributes  have  their  unity  in 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         4157 

His  Unconditioned  Personality.  Man  cannot  understand 
the  Unconditioned.  He  is  forced  to  content  himself 
with  regarding  the  Divine  Will  as  a  law  to  itself.  Back 
of  everything  there  is,  must  be,  an  Infinite  Personality. 
Infinity  and  personality  are  indeed  to  us  irreconcilable 
terms.  We  are  compelled  by  reason  to  regard  God 
as  Infinite.  We  are  under  the  necessity  of  viewing  Him 
as  a  person.  As  our  natures  are  finite,  we  cannot  expect 
to  circumscribe  the  Illimitable,  to  measure  the  Immeas- 
urable, to  comprehend  the  Incomprehensible. 

With  such  conceptions  of  the  Creator,  the  reader  is 
prepared  to  accept  the  Scriptural  statement:  "In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  " — 
everything  objective  to  Himself.  "  God  said,  let  there  be 
light  " — by  an  act  of  will  He  called  it  into  being.  These 
volitions  were  not  determined  by  outward  conditions,  nor 
by  inherent  necessity.  Matter,  space,  time,  number, 
were  not  pre-existing  entities,  independent  of  God  and 
capable  of  determining  the  nature  of  the  creative  volition. 
"All  things  were  made  by  Him."  "By  Him  were  all  things 
created,  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible 
and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or 
principalities,  or  powers;  all  things  were  created  by  Him 
and  for  Him;  and  He  is  before  all  things,  and  by  Him  all 
things  consist."  * 

Is  science  prepared  to  accept  this  ? 

The  weight  of  scientific  testimony  favors  the  theory 
that  matter  owes  its  existence  to  the  Unconditioned  Will 
of  God.  Science  claims  to  have  proved  that  matter  can- 
not be  self-created.  It  cannot  be  the  really  efficient 
agent  in  the  production  of  any  change,  either  in  itself  or 
in  anything  external  to  itself.  It  is  a  condition  of  the 
action  of  force,  the  recipient  of  impulse.     Force  is  not  one 

*  Col.  i.  1 6. 


43S  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

of  its  properties.  This  is  proved  by  the  fact  of  inertia. 
To  affirm  that  force  is  an  attribute  of  matter,  and  in  the 
same  breath  to  declare  that  matter  is  inert,  is  self-con- 
tradictory. It  implies  that  passivity  and  activity  can  be 
properties  of  the  same  substance.  Moreover,  that  force 
is  not  entitled  to  be  regarded  as  an  attribute  of  matter 
appears  from  the  fact  that  it  cannot  be  recognized  as  a 
direct  effect  of  matter,  as  other  properties  can.  The  be- 
lief that  it  may  be,  is  a  deduction  of  reason.  Certainly, 
it  is  not  a  property  of  matter  in  the  sense  in  which  hard- 
ness, extension,  impenetrability,  are.  Nor,  so  far  as  we 
can  see,  can  it  originate  motion  by  virtue  of  its  being  an 
attribute. 

Motion,  an  exponent  of  force,  is  a  change  in  position; 
and  matter  cannot  even  tend  to  its  origination.  It  consists 
merely  of  ultimate  molecules  capable  of  being  influenced 
by  force.  In  the  various  forms  of  motion,  force  is  inter- 
cepted by  matter  and  its  presence  thereby  manifested. 
Material  movement  can  be  efficient  in  originating  nothing 
but  material  movement.  If  force  is  an  attribute  of  mat- 
ter, then  sensation,  it  would  seem,  might  also  be  an  attri- 
bute of  matter;  but  sensation  is  essentially  different  from 
molecular  vibrations,  from  anything  which  matter  can 
generate.  The  effect  is  totally  unlike  the  cause;  and  the 
cause  is  seemingly  no  cause  whatever.  The  vibrations 
come  to  a  stop,  and  something  different  takes  their  place. 
To  assume  that  consciousness  is  a  phenomenon  of  agi- 
tated molecules  in  the  brain  involves  a  world  of  absurdity. 
It  requires  us  to  regard  consciousness  as  an  affection  of 
matter,  and  thought  as  a  material  entity  or  as  one  of  the 
essential  attributes  of  matter.  It  supposes  that  the  move- 
ment of  molecules — or  of  an  atom,  if  consciousness  is  to 
be  regarded  as  concentrated  in  a  single  atom — may  be  the 
efficient  agent  in  producing  the  sense  of  personal  klen- 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         439 

tity,  though  no  molecules  and  no  atoms  tarry  in  the  hu- 
man system  more  than  a  few  years  at  longest,  probably 
not  longer  than  one  year.  It  assumes  that  memory  is 
an  atom,  or  a  combination  of  atoms,  stored  away  in  the 
cranium,  and  that  atoms  which  are  successors  to  de- 
parted atoms  are  capable  of  reproducing  facts  treasured 
from  the  past,  and  even  of  informing  us  that  ideas  have 
been  lost,  though  incapable,  meanwhile,  of  reproducing 
the  lost  treasures  or  testifying  clearly  to  their  nature. 

Matter,  it  is  conceded,  is  not  self-created;  nor  is  force 
one  of  its  attributes. 

Nor  is  it  possible  to  regard  matter  as  a  property  of 
self-existent  force.  There  are.  physicists,  it  is  true,  who 
insist  that  the  universe  is  explicable  on  the  hypothesis 
of  ultimate  centers  of  energy.  They  do  not  regard  mat- 
ter as  a  substantive  entity,  but  as  a  phenomenon  of  force. 
Substances,  they  believe,  are  known  by  their  essential  at- 
tributes, and  can  be  known  in  no  other  way.  They  deny 
that  matter  possesses  any  essential  attributes.  Even  ex- 
tension, resistance,  inertia,  and  impenetrability,  they 
designate  phenomena  of  force.  Light,  heat,  electricity, 
magnetism,  and  chemical  affinity — which  they  denomi- 
nate modes  of  motion — are  in  their  judgment  no  more 
certainly  transformations  of  one  ubiquitous  force  than  are 
the  various  forms  of  matter.  All  finite  existences  may 
be  reduced  to  modes  of  motion.  These  various  modes  of 
motion  are  only  phenomenal  manifestations  of  an  eternal 
underlying  reality.  Matter,  in  its  ultimate  essence,  is 
spiritual,  and  needed  no  creator.  Every  grain  of  sand  is 
but  the  pulsation  of  an  eternal  life;  hence  the  mysterious 
influence  which  nature  has  over  us. 

According  to  this  theory,  matter  is  only  a  function  of 
force,  and  can  be  described  only  in  terms  of  force.  The 
entire   universe   is   but   the   visible    manifestation    of  an 


440  TLEISM   ANn    EVOLUTION. 

invisible  force.  It  is  phenomenal.  In  the  opinion  of  J. 
Allinson  Picton.this  is  the  theory  into  which  the  christian 
system  of  doctrine  is  to  be  merged  ere  long.  Christian 
pantheism  is  to  take  the  place  of  theism. 

At  present,  however,  the  majority  of  scientists  regard 
matter  as  an  entity,  not  as  a  mere  phenomenon;  as  a 
reality,  not  as  an  aggregation  of  physical  forces;  as  a 
substance,  not  as  a  simple  property  of  some  underlying 
reality;  as  demanding  a  creator,  not  as  the  mere  shadow 
of  some  unseen  entity.  It  is  apparently  safe  to  regard 
this  as  the  testimony  of  scientists  inasmuch  as  the  war- 
fare still  continues  between  those  who  regard  force  as  an 
attribute  of  matter  and  those  who  regard  matter  as  an 
attribute  of  force.  The  materialists  may  be  allowed  to 
refute  the  spiritualists,  and  the  spiritualists  to  refute  the 
materialists.  The  truth,  as  often  happens,  may  be  on 
neither  side.  Certainly,  it  has  not  been  clearly  proved 
that  force  is  simply  an  affection  of  matter:  nor  that  the 
latter  is  an  attribute  of  the  former.  Each  may  be  a  reality. 
Consequently,  while  one  class  is  asserting  that  there  is 
no  mental  force  distinct  from  the  brain,  and  another 
that  the  brain  itself  is  in  its  essence  spiritual,  the  theist 
is  strongly  tempted  to  conclude  that  each  has  succeeded 
in  refuting,  his  antagonist,  and  that  matter  and  force  are 
alike  in  each  possessing  an  actual  existence  independent 
of  the  other  and  in  demanding  an  adequate  cause. 

As  has  been  said  by  Mr.  Spencer,  "  The  indestruc- 
tibility of  matter  is  now  held  by  many  to  be  a  truth  of 
which  the  negation  is  inconceivable."  This  belief,  as  it 
would  seem,  ought  to  carry  with  it  the  conviction  that 
matter  is  not  merely  "  a  localized  manifestation  of  force," 
a  phenomenon.  It  seems  somewhat  unphilosophical  to 
say  that  phenomena  are  indestructible.  If,  then,  matter  is 
indestructible,  ought  it  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  reality  and 


SCIENCE    AND     THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         441 

not  as  phenomenal  ?  Those  who  are  unwilling  to  view  it 
in  this  light  ought,  it  would  seem,  to  cease  talking  about 
the  indestructibility  of  matter,  or  ought  frankly  to  con- 
cede that  they  simply  mean  the  indestructibility  of  force. 
This,  manifestly,  is  all  they  can  mean.  They  do  not 
design  to  assert  that  a  "  localized  manifestation  "  is  in- 
destructible. Evidently,  only  the  force  is  indestructible. 
But  what  are  we  to  understand  by  the  term  force,  as 
employed  by  these  writers  ?  Why,  evidently  we  are 
to  understand  the  only  underlying  reality,  the  Ulti- 
mate of  all  ultimates.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that 
though  we  have  heard  so  much  in  these  recent  years 
about  the  indestructibility  of  matter,  the  continuity  of 
motion,  and  the  persistence  of  force,  the  only  indestruc- 
tible, continuous,  and  persistent  reality,  after  all,  is  the 
Unknowable. 

Science  lays  claim  to  having  proved  that  matter  can- 
not have  existed  from  eternity.  It  teaches  that  material 
things  must  have  had  a  beginning,  inasmuch  as  every- 
thing material  has  the  characteristics  of  a  manufactured 
article,  forcing  the  conviction  that  it  must  have  had  a 
beginning.  "  No  theory  of  evolution  can  be  formed  to 
account  for  the  similarity  of  molecules,  for  evolution 
necessarily  implies  continuous  change,  and  the  molecule 
is  incapable  of  growth  or  decay,  of  generation  or  de- 
struction. None  of  the  processes  of  nature,  since  the 
time  when  nature  began,  have  produced  the  slightest 
difference  in  the  properties  of  any  molecule.  We  are 
therefore  unable  to  ascribe  either  the  existence  of  the 
molecules  or  the  identity  of  their  properties  to  the  opera- 
tion of  any  of  the  causes  which  we  call  natural."  * 

2.  As  science  is  indisposed  to  undertake  the  task  of 
showing  that  matter  is  the  Ultimate  Reality,  does  it  con- 

*  Prof.  J.  Clerk  Maxwell,  F.  R.  S.,  Nature,  vol.  viii.  p.  441. 


442  THEISM   A  A7/)    EVOLUTION. 

sider  itself  competent  to  prove  that  physical  force  is  the 
originating  cause  of  all  things?  No:  it  teaches  that 
force  cannot  generate  itself.  It  is  not  self-existent,  an 
eternal,  independent  entity.  The  results  of  scientific  in- 
vestigation make  it  clear  that  the  processes  of  nature 
must  have  had  a  beginning;  and  as  well  also  the  forces 
operative  in  those  processes.  The  complicated  machine 
which  is  constructed  for  the  transmission  and  distribu- 
tion of  energy  could  not  have  existed  from  eternity;  nor 
could  the  forces  which  are  transmitted.  They  exist  in 
correlation  with  material  existences,  under  conditions 
and  in  dependence.  The  convertibility  of  the  several 
forces  is  an  established  fact,  it  is  true;  and  it  is  probable 
that  they  may  yet  be  successfully  reduced  to  one  force, 
as  some  claim  has  been  done  already.  Dr.  Cohn,  of 
the  University  of  Breslau,  affirms:  "Electricity  and  mag- 
netism, heat  and  light,  muscular  energy  and  chemical 
action,  motion  and  mechanical  work  are  only  different 
forms  of  one  and  the  same  power."  *  If  this  be  true,  what 
follows  ?  Evidently  not  that  the  force  operative  in  the 
world  is  an  eternal,  independent  entity,  self-existent. 
Even  Mr.  Hebert  Spencer  concedes  that  force  is  to  be 
regarded  as  an  expression  of  will.  Modern  research  is 
apparently  forcing  upon  us  the  conviction  that  all  force, 
in  the  ultimate  analysis,  is  an  outflow  of  an  Infinite 
Will.  Dr.  Carpenter  says,  "  The  deep-seated  instincts 
of  humanity  and  the  profoundest  researches  of  philoso- 
phy alike  point  to  mind  as  the  only  source  of  power." 
Again:  "Believing  that  all  force  which  does  not 
emanate  from  the  will  of  created  sentient  beings, 
directly  and  immediately  proceeds  from  the  Will  of 
the  Omnipotent  and  Omnipresent  Creator,  ...  I  do 
not   feel    the    validity    of  the    objections    urged    against 

*  Prof.  J.  Clerk  Maxwell,  F.  R.  S.,  Nature,  vol.  vii.  p.   137. 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         443 

the  idea  of  the  absolute  metamorphosis  and  conversion 
of  forces."* 

Mr.  Spencer  says,  "  Force,  as  we  know  it,  can  be 
regarded  only  as  a  certain  conditioned  effect  of  the 
Unconditioned  Cause — as  the  relative  reality  indicating 
to  us  an  Absolute  Reality  by  which  it  is  immediately 
produced."  t 

Force,  then,  in  its  origin  and  in  its  continuance,  is  de- 
pendent upon  the  will  in  which  it  originates.  The  power 
it  wields  is  delegated.  Will-force  is  the  only  force  in 
existence.  The  will  of  God  is  the  only  self-existent  force 
in  the  universe:  motion,  a  result,  must  have  its  origin  in  ■ 
volition.  No  force — and  no  motion — possesses  the  power 
of  self-origination.  Neither  can  be  eternal,  except  in  the 
sense  in  which  a  volition  may  be  regarded  as  eternal  be- 
cause its  source  is.  Every  force  may  be  transmitted  and 
transmuted,  but  its  origin  is  the  will  of  the  creature,  or 
is  the  will  of  the  Creator — all  force  being  traceable 
backwards  to  the  Unconditioned  Will  of  God.  These 
are  the  conclusions  towards  which  modern  science  points 
with  unmistakable  clearness. 

The  physical  forces  are  to  be  regarded,  then,  as  an  ex- 
pression of  the  Divine  Will.  They  are  streams  of  potency 
issuing  from  the  self-existent  source  of  all  power. 

3.  In  like  manner,  life  also  must  have  had  its  origin  in 
the  Will  of  God.  The  famous  maxim,  "  omne  vivum  ex 
vivo,"  is  accepted  with  as  much  confidence  as  the  law  of 
gravitation.  Science  repudiates  the  assumption  that  life 
may  have  originated  in  spontaneous  generation.  No 
combination  of  material  elements,  or  of  physical  forces, 
could  have  given  birth  to  life.  Until  it  has  been  proved 
that  living  organisms  have  existed,  or  at  least  may  have 

*  Mutual  Relation  of  the  Vital  and  Physical  Forces,  p.  730. 
f  First  Principles,  p.  170. 


444  THEISM    AND    EVOLUTION. 

existed  from  eternity,  it  will  be  regarded  as  in  harmony 
with  science  to  affirm  that  every  animate  existence  owes 
its  origin  to  a  Divine  volition.  That  life  on  earth  has 
not  been  eternal  is  conceded.  There  was  a  time  when 
the  conditions  of  life  did  not  prevail  on  this  planet.  That 
a  living  organism,  or  living  organisms,  were  transported 
from  some  other  sphere  is  a  mere  conjecture,  and  improb- 
able. The  weight  of  scientific  evidence  is  decidedly  in 
ravor  of  the  Biblical  doctrine, — Life  a  Divine  creation. 

With  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the  Mosaic  ac- 
count, it  becomes  easier  to  understand  the  word  "  bara," 
which  is  used  with  discrimination  in  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  as  meaning  absolute  creation  in  connection  with 
the  origination  of  matter,  of  plant-life,  of  animal  organ- 
isms and  of  man. 

The  will  of  God,  then,  may  be  regarded  as  the  orig- 
inating cause  of  all  things, — of  matter,  of  force,  of  life, 
of  mentality.  The  word  cause  is  not  to  be  understood, 
in  this  connection,  as  a  synonym  for  antecedent,  but 
as  that  which  has  efficiency  in  producing  effects.  In 
strictness  of  speech,  there  are  no  secondary  causes,  each 
secondary  cause  being  an  effect  of  an  antecedent  cause, 
which  in  turn  is  an  effect — the  chain  running  backwards 
to  the  primal  cause  of  all  so-called  causes,  the  Uncon- 
ditioned Will  of  God.  A  mere  antecedent  is  no  cause 
whatever;  and  what  are  knowTn  as  secondary  causes, 
having  only  a  delegated  efficiency,  and  being  effects,  are 
not  causes  in  the  sense  of  having  originating  power.  To 
prove  with  scientific  accuracy  that  this  extended  series 
o(  effects, — each  of  which  has  no  more  than  a  delegated 
efficiency, — flows  from  the  Divine  efficiency,  is  the  problem 
awaiting  a  clearer  solution — one  upon  which  science  is 
laboring  unceasingly. 

The  theory  here  outlined  is  not  open  to  the  charge  of 


SCIENCE    AND     THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         445 

being  a  subtle  form  of  pantheism.  To  say  that  God  is 
immanent  in  nature  is  not  to  identify  Him  with  nature. 
Divine  immanency  is  not  inconsistent  with  Divine  tran- 
scendency. God  is  above  nature  as  well  as  in  nature. 
To  view  God  as  no  more  than  the  life  of  the  universe  is 
hylozoism.  To  regard  all  existences,  the  material  and 
the  immaterial,  as  only  visible  manifestations  of  an  eter- 
nal, self-existent  substance,  which  has  no  existence  in- 
dependent of,  over  and  above  nature,  and  by  consequence 
is  not  cognizant  of  its  own  existence,  being  without  per- 
sonality, is  panthesim.  To  combine  two  conceptions, 
the  immanency  and  the  transcendency,  regarding  God  as 
voluntarily  immanent  in  nature  and  at  the  same  time  in- 
finitely superior  to  nature,  having  intelligence,  will  and 
separate  subsistence — is  what  we  understand  as  chris- 
tian theism. 

Consequently,  as  is  now  generally  conceded,  science 
finds  no  serious  difficulty  in  accepting  the  Mosaic  account 
of  creation, — not  man's  mistaken  expositions  thereof,  but 
the  account  as  self-interpreted.  What  obstacle  prevents 
the  scientist  from  accepting  the  first  verse  of  Genesis,  which 
announces  that  matter  owes  its  origin  to  the  Divine  Will  ? 
In  crediting  this,  he  is  perhaps  not  precluded  from  believ- 
ing that  God  fashioned  matter  from  his  own  eternal  sub- 
stance, provided  he  does  not  insist  on  regarding  it  as  an 
unwilled  evolution.  So  long  as  the  scientific  expositor 
has  permission  to  interpret  the  language  as  seems  to  him 
least  repugnant  to  reason,  has  he  any  right  to  complain 
if  some  divines  prefer  to  interpret  the  verse  as  ascribing 
absolute  creation  to  God  ?  Because  he  insists  that  the 
creation  of  something  from  nothing  is  to  him  inconceiv- 
able, has  he  a  right  to  affirm  that  to  the  theologian  it 
must  also  be  inconceivable  that  a  universe  should  have 
its  origin  in  an  omnipotent  Will  ? 


446  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Is  he  able  to  measure  Omnipotence  ?  In  either  case 
— whether  matter  was  formed  from  God's  own  eternal 
substance,  or  was  called  into  being  from  nothingness  by 
the  almighty  fiat  of  an  Infinite  Will,  thereby  increasing 
the  sum  of  existence  in  the  universe — its  origin  may  be 
the  result  of  a  Divine  volition.  In  this  statement, both 
the  scientist  and  the  theologian  may  concur;  and  such 
concurrence  is  general. 

Is  there  any  insuperable  difficulty  in  believing  that 
"  The  Lord  God  made  every  plant  of  the  field  before 
it  was  in  the  earth,  and  every  herb  of  the  field  before  it 
grew"?  The  scientist  cannot  tell  us  how  plant-life  orig- 
inated. He  cannot  account  for  its  origin  by  any  known 
secondary  causes.  Until  he  can  give  a  more  satisfactory 
answer,  why  should  he  object  to  this,  which  character- 
izes plant-life  as  a  principle  distinct  from  matter  ? 

Is  there  any  valid  reason  why  the  student  of  nature 
should  object  to  the  statement  that  "  God  created  every 
living  creature  after  its  kind  "  ?  It  has  not  been  proved 
that  animal  organisms  evolved,  or  can  evolve,  from  either 
plants  or  inorganic  matter.  It  has  not  been  rendered 
probable  that  abiogenesis  has  occurred  even  once,  or  pos- 
sibly might  occur.  Until  a  more  rational  hypothesis  is 
presented,  why  object  to  accepting  the  Scriptural  asser- 
tion ?  Until  a  more  satisfactory  solution  of  the  intricate 
problem  is  furnished,  it  is  unwise  to  ridicule  the  solution 
which  is  accepted  by  a  large  number  of  eminent  thinkers. 

Are  there  insurmountable  barriers  to  our  believing 
that  "  God  created  man  in  his  own  image  "  ?  Even  ad- 
mitting that  evolution  has  been  proved  to  have  occurred 
in  each  great  system — in  matter,  in  plant-life,  in  animal 
organisms,  in  the  human  race, — admitting  that  fixity  of 
species  is  an  exploded  theory,  still,  scientists  have  not 
proved  that  one  of  these  four  great  systems  has  passed 


SCIENCE    AND     THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         447 

into  another  by  insensible  gradations.  They  have  not 
proved  that  man  evolved  from  the  lower  animals,  that  irra- 
tionality can  originate  rationality.  Until  this  is  proved, 
nothing  is  proved  as  against  the  Scriptural  assertion  that 
"  God  created  man";  and  even  when  it  shall  have  been 
proved  that  man  was  evolved  from  the  monkey-tribe,  it 
will  be  incumbent  on  those  who  desire  to  eliminate  God 
from  the  universe  to  prove,  not  merely  that  "  bara  "  means 
forms  and  that  evolution  is  not  God's  method  of  work- 
ing, but  that  the  non-sentient  can  give  birth  to  the 
sentient. 

The  Mosaic  cosmogony  makes  mention  of  four  orig- 
inations:— 

i.  That  of  matter.     Gen.  i.  I. 

2.  That  of  plant-life.     Gen.  ii.  4-5. 

3.  That  of  animal  life.     Gen.  i.  21. 

4.  That  of  man.     Gen.  i.  27. 

Evolution  has  these  four  extended  territories  in  which 
to  display  its  powers;  and  before  laying  claim  to  a  wider 
field,  it  ought  to  present  evidence  of  having  cultivated 
its  possessions  up  to  these  seemingly  impassible  border- 
lines; then,  title  in  hand,  it  will  appear  less  presumptuous 
in  claiming  the  prerogatives  of  a  Creator. 

II.  There   has  been  development. 

This  affirmation  is  accepted  alike  by  the  scientist  and 
by  the  theologian.  Neither  has  the  right  to  regard  him- 
self as  the  sole  champion  of  the  theory.  Certainly  the 
expounders  of  the  Scriptures  are  indisposed  to  lay  claim 
to  this  honor,  though  they  are  prepared  to  defend  the 
doctrine,— mot,  however,  the  atheistic  forms  which  it 
too  frequently  assumes.  They  do  not  believe  that  mole- 
cules of  matter,  and  atoms  of  force,  and  germs  of  plant- 
life,  and  parental  forms  of  animal  organisms,  and  ances- 
tral  types   of  the   human   family,  were   developed   from 


448  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

pre-existing  lower  forms.  They  are  indisposed  to  accept 
the  doctrine  of  the  transmutation  of  species;  and  conse- 
quently, when  it  comes  to  the  question  of  regarding  all 
existences  as  an  ascending  series  of  individuals, — even 
genera  being  obliterated, — they  are  disposed  to  enter 
their  protest;  and  when  they  are  asked  to  regard  the 
above  four  kingdoms  as  issuing  by  insensible  gradations 
from  pre-existing  "star-dust,"  their  reason  cries,  "  Halt  !" 

To  deny,  however,  that  there  has  been  a  purpose,  and 
that  this  purpose  has  been  gradually  unfolded,  producing 
a  connected  series  of  events;  that  the  consecutive  links 
in  this  series  indicate  improvement;  that  there  is  unity  in 
all  the  stages  of  this  complicated  system  of  related 
changes, — would  be  even  more  unreasonable  than  to  as- 
sert that  the  universe  came  into  being  by  a  single  fiat  of 
the  Almighty.  Creation  has  had  a  history.  There  has 
been  a  plan  which  was  gradually  unfolded.  There  has 
been  progress.  God  is,  not  merely  was  for  one  brief  in- 
stant. Believing  that  there  have  been  changes  in  the 
past, — creative  eras, — one  readily  comes  to  believe  that 
there  will  be  changes  in  the  future.  That  the  condition 
of  things  in  the  present  is  different  from  what  it  was  "  in 
the  beginning"  is  no  more  certain  than  that  the 'present 
condition  of  things  will  not  continue  forever.  Organiza- 
tions exist  now  which  were  not  in  existence  during 
paleontoiogical  periods — on  earth  at  least.  Those  in  ex- 
istence now,  should  God  so  choose,  may  be  succeeded  by 
others,  or  everything  may  be  annihilated,  or,  may  be  so 
changed  as  to  be  a  new  order  of  things.  God's  purpose 
will  no  doubt  be  consummated.  Hence  it  may  be  safely 
conceded: — 

I.  That  theie  is  a  single  purpose  running  through  the 
history  of  the  earth.  Teleology  is  the  highest  law  in  the 
universe. 


SCIENCE    AND     THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONELICT.  149 

2.  That  God,  in  the  manifestation  of  His  purpose,  has 
seen  fit  to  furnish  His  rational  intelligences  with  a  gradual 
manifestation  of  His  omnipotent  power.  He  might  have 
willed  otherwise.  He  has  chosen  to  unfold  His  plans  in 
successive  stages,  perhaps  because  this  course  is  most 
conducive  to  the  good  of  His  creatures,  enabling  them 
to  comprehend  more  clearly  His  nature,  His  manifesta- 
tions, and  His  benevolent  designs. 

3.  That  the  successive  stages  in  the  manifestation  of 
this  one  purpose  are  closely  related.  Except  at  certain 
great  breaks,  there  is  continuity;  and  even  the  breaks 
succeed  each  other  in  an  ascending  series,  pointing  to  a 
predetermined  end, — an  improved  condition.  Origina- 
tions are  a  progressive  disclosure  of  an  established  order, 
being  from  the  less  complex  to  the  more  complex — 
matter,  plant-life,  animal  life,  rational  life.  Each  new 
development,  and  each  new  display  of  creative  energy, 
is  a  revelation  of  laws  in  an  ever-ascending  series. 

4.  That,  consequently,  improvement  characterizes  the 
succession  of  changes.  Retrogression  occurs,  it  is  true; 
but  this  is  confined  within  comparatively  narrow  limits. 
In  the  aggregate,  the  changes  indicate  advance.  There 
is  an  order  of  thought.  Progress  is  the  law  of  the 
universe. 

5.  That,  by  virtue  of  this  unity  in  design,  there  is  unity 
in  the  result.  Notwithstanding  the  numberless  stages  of 
development,  and  variety  in  the  related  parts,  there  is 
harmony.     The  universe  is  a  cosmos. 

6.  That  organisms  exist  now  which  were  unknown  on 
the  earth  in  primeval  eras.  For  all  that  can  be  proved 
to  the  contrary,  physical  forces,  i.  e.,  differentiated  modes 
of  motion,  may  be  in  operation  now  which  were  not  in 
operation  when  God  alone  was.  New  organisms  may  be 
created.     New  forces  may  be  set  in  motion.     The  world 


450  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

may  perish  through  age,  or  may  pass  through  changes 
rendering  it  as  much  unlike  its  present  self,  as  its  present 
stale  is  unlike  its  pre-existing  state. 

It  would  seem  that  science  may  accept  the  Mosaic 
cosmogony.     That  ancient  document  asserts: — 

1.  That  in  its  primitive  condition  matter  was  void, 
empty,  deep,  dark — a  vast,  inert,  gaseous  mass,  brooded 
over  by  the  power  of  the  Infinite  (Gen.  i.  1-2).  Prof.  A. 
Guyot,  in  his  work  entitled  Creation,  has  given  valid 
reasons,  it  is  believed,  why  the  word  translated  in  our 
version  "  earth  "  should  be  regarded  as  equivalent  to 
matter  in  general.  In  like  manner,  the  term  "  water," 
employed  in  verse  second,  may  be  taken  as  designating 
the  state  of  the  cosmic  elements.  The  Hebrew  word 
denotes  a  tumultuous,  undulatory  movement.  Hence, 
without  conceding  that  the  word  is  a  subterfuge  forced 
upon  theologians  by  the  progress  of  science,  we  con- 
clude that  the  matter,  which  verse  1  affirms  that  God 
created,  was  gaseoi-s;  "void,"  because  homogeneous; 
"dark,"  because  inactive;  "deep,"  because  expanded 
through  a  great  extent  of  space;  brooded  over  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  because  He  alone  could  impart  to  it  the 
forces  subsequently  associated  with  it.  Certainly  force 
has  not  been  proved  1o  be  an  essential  attribute  of  mat- 
ter. Why,  then,  may  not  the  theologian. and  the  scientist 
agree  in  regarding  this  "  formless,  homogeneous,  struc- 
tureless" original  element  as  the  substance  from  which 
worlds  were  formed  ? 

2.  That  this  Spirit,  brooding  over  the  face  of  the  abyss, 
was  the  efficient  cause  of  activity,  resulting  in  the  pro- 
duction of  light,  i.  e.%  of  all  the  physical  forces,  each  of 
which  is  capable  of  conversion  into  light.  Hence,  as 
might  be  expected,  the  creation  of  light  antedated  the 
creation  of  the  sun.     The  theologian  may  find  the   Bible 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         45x 

fitted  to  aid  him  in  accepting  the  results  of  scientific  in- 
vestigation. The  scientist  may  discover,  in  the  undu- 
latory  theory  of  light  and  in  the  correlation  of  the  forces, 
an  argument  in  support  of  revelation.  Neither  can 
detect  any  serious  want  of  harmony  between  nature 
and  the  Bible.  The  natural  and  the  supernatural  must 
harmonize. 

Of  course,  no  theologian  now  interprets  the  term  "  day  v 
(yom),  as  employed  in  the  account  of  creation,  as  mean- 
ing a  period  of  twenty-four  hours.  We  have  the  author- 
ity of  Scripture  for  regarding  the  word  as  frequently 
equivalent  to  a  period  of  indefinite  length.  "  Your 
father  Abraham  desired  to  see  my  day."  "  The  day  of 
the  Son  of  Man."  "  I  must  work  the  work  of  Him  that 
sent  me  while  it  is  day."  "  If  thou  hadst  known,  even 
thou,  at  least  in  this  thy  day."  "  The  day  of  salvation." 
"  The  day  of  judgment." 

3.  That  there  were  divisions  in  the  nebulous  matter 
which,  under  the  influence  of  centrifugal  and  centripetal 
forces,  broke  into  numerous  gaseous  masses;  and  that 
these  differentiated  into  systems;  these,  into  worlds. 
"  God  divided  the  light  from  the  darkness,"  i.  e.,  the  active 
nebulae  from  the  inactive  matter  that  pervaded  space. 
"  And  God  said,  Let  there  be  a  firmament  in  the  midst  of 
the  waters,  and  let  it  divide  the  waters  from  the  waters." 
An  expanse,  void  space,  was  made  to  intervene  between 
the  nebulous  masses,  each  of  which  was  concentrating, 
forming  worlds.  Planetary  systems  are  separated.  The 
heavens  are  organized.  Motion  is  producing  division; 
and  in  each  great  division,  bodies  of  various  'sizes  are 
forming.  The  nebular  hypothesis,  if  established  by  scien- 
tific argument,  meets  no  serious  difficulty  in  the  Mosaic 
cosmogony. 

4.  That   a  portion   of  matter    condensed  into  a  solid 


452  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

globe,  the  earth;  that  its  waters,  which  primarily  con- 
stituted a  shoreless  ocean,  were  subsequently  "  gathered 
together  unto  one  place,"  causing  the  dry  land  to  appear. 
In  verse  9,  Moses  gives  the  result,  not  the  lengthy  pro- 
cess. If  science  can  make  good  the  following  state- 
ments:— this  condensation  was  a  result  of  the  loss  of  heat 
by  radiation;  the  waters,  originally  warm,  must  also  have 
been  acidulated,  inasmuch  as  the  material  deposited  in 
rocks  was  once  in  gaseous  state;  by  chemical  action  the 
earth  was  transmuted  into  a  vast  galvanic  battery,  con- 
stantly throwing  off  streams  of  electricity  which  at  the 
limits  of  the  enveloping  atmosphere  became  luminous, 
rendering  the  earth  a  brilliant  star;  the  earth  lost  its 
luminosity  by  cooling,  and  became  at  length  a  dark  speck 
on  the  ocean  of  immensity;  in  the  process  of  cooling,  it 
shrank  to  such  an  extent  as  to  cause  depressions  and  up- 
heavals, resulting  in  the  separation  of  land  and  water; — 
the  Bible  offers  no  objection.  Neither  the  theologian  nor 
the  physicist  needs  to  grow  nervous.  Each  may  address 
himself  to  the  task  of  ascertaining  the  facts. 

5.  That  the  earth  brought  forth  vegetation.  Verse  II, 
of  chapter  i.,  can  scarcely  be  understood  as  intimating 
that  a  combination  of  physical  forces,  or  of  material  ele- 
ments, produced  plant-life;  for,  in  chapter  ii.,  verses  4-5, 
we  read,  "  These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and 
of  the  earth  ...  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  God  made 
.  .  .  every  plant  of  the  field  before  it  was  in  the  earth, 
and  every  herb  of  the  field  before  it  grew." 

6.  That  the  sun  and  the  moon  became  the  source  of 
light  and  heat  to  the  earth.  Not  that  these  were  then 
first  created.  They  may  have  existed  before,  being  then 
simply  made  to  assume  new  and  more  important  relations 
to  the  terrestrial  globe.  The  earth  being  no  longer  self- 
luminous,  and  having   lost   much   of  its   heat   by  radia- 


SCIENCE    AND     THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         453 

tion,  received  its  light,  and  with  light,  heat,  from  the 
sun. 

7.  That  the  waters  teemed  with  living  beings,  and  the 
air  became  the  home  of  birds.  If  science  can  prove  that 
there  was  an  established  order  in  the  introduction  of  the 
various  species  of  animals, — protozoans,  invertebrates, 
fishes,  reptiles,  mammals, — the  Bible  student  has  no  cause* 
for  alarm.  His  text-book  merely  affirms  that  God  cre- 
ated animals;  and  this  has  not  been  disproved.  Spon- 
taneous generation  has  very  few  adherents.  Creation  of 
the  various  animal  organisms  may  have  been  a  series  of 
creative  acts:  it  may  have  been  a  creation  by  derivation. 

8.  That  man  was  the  final  act  of  creation. 
Certainly,   then,   according   to   the   Biblical   account, 

there  has  been  progress.  Evolution  within  each  of  the 
four  great  classes, — matter,  plant-life,  animal  life,  rational 
life, — science  is  at  liberty  to  prove,  without  incurring  cen- 
sure from  interpreters  of  Scripture.  Has  it  succeeded  in 
proving  that  all  forms,  within  these  four  classes,  are  evo- 
lutions from  as  many  primordial  germs  ?  Quite  doubtful. 
Still,  theism  has  no  objection  to  the  continuance  of  the 
effort;  no  cause  for  apprehension  if  success  shall  reward 
the  labors.  God  is  not  eliminated.  The  Bible  state- 
ments are  not  disproved.  These  great  orders,  if  not  the 
species  included  under  them,  are  declared  in  Scriptures 
to  have  been  created  by  Him  whom  theists  denominate 
the  First  Cause  of  all  things;  and  until  it  is  proved  that 
they  were  successively  evolved  from  pre-existing  forms, 
the  chain  being  run  backwards  to  some  one  eternally 
existent  substance,  science  and  the  Bible  cannot  be 
said  to  be  in  antagonism.  There  is  no  valid  reason 
why  it  may  not  be  asserted  that  nature's  great  volume 
and  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation  are  in  perfect 
harmony. 


454  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

III.  There  have  been  breaks  in  the  ordin- 
arily CONTINUOUS  FLOW  OF  EVENTS. 

Having  attempted  to  establish  this  proposition  in  a 
preceding  chapter,  we  will  not  burden  the  reader  with 
further  arguments  under  this  head. 


CHAPTER   XXV. 

SCIENCE  AND   THE   BIBLE:    NO   CONFLICT   {CONTINUED). 

HAVING  seen  that  science  and  the  Bible  are  in  har- 
mony, in  regarding  the  Unconditioned  Will  of  God  as 
the  originating  cause  of  all  things,  in  conceding-  that 
there  has  been  development,  in  being  ready  to  admit 
that  there  have  been  breaks  in  the  ordinarily  continuous 
flow  of  events,  the  reader  is  invited  to  consider  a  fourth 
harmony. 

IV.  The  present  arrangements  of  nature,  in 

WHICH  THERE  IS  AN  ORDERLY  SUCCESSION  OF  EVENTS, 
MUST    HAVE    HAD    A    BEGINNING. 

It  is  impossible  to  believe  that  there  should  be  an 
order  evincing  design,  without  an  antecedent  cause  to 
produce  it.  Phenomena  must  have  an  underlying  reality. 
Law  presupposes  a  lawgiver.  Order  is  not  an  eternal 
verity  which  imposes  conditions  upon  all  modes  of 
existence.  Like  time,  space,  and  number,  it  may  be 
regarded  as  a  necessary  result  of  God's  own  eternal 
Personality;  but  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  self-existent. 
That  would  be  to  violate  the  law  of  unity  in  the  origin 
of  existences.  Reason  affirms  that  there  can  be  but 
one  eternal  reality,  and  that,  consequently,  a  predeter- 
mined order  must  be  a  result  of  the  existence  of  an 
eternal  Intelligent  Will. 

More  than  one  infinite — and  the  First  Cause  must  be 
infinite — is  inconceivable;   for  two  or  more  infinites,  by 


456  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

limiting  each  other,  would  each  become  finite.  In  like 
manner,  more  than  one  absolute  is  unthinkable.  To  sup- 
pose that  an  order  existed  independent  of  the  First  Cause 
is  to  suppose  that  there  could  be  two  first  causes,  which  is 
manifestly  inconceivable,  inasmuch  as  that  which  neces- 
sitates more  than  one  first  cause  would  be  "  the  First 
Cause."  Consequently,  to  conjecture  that  order  existed 
antecedent  to,  or  independent  of,  the  First  Cause,  is  to 
designate  it  as  the  First  Cause;  and  as  order  implies 
intelligence,  will,  and  separate  subsistence,  this  first 
cause  must  have  been  a  Personality.  We  are  under  the 
necessity  of  regarding  the  Ultimate  of  all  ultimates 
as  unconditioned. 

If  it  is  said  that  this  law  of  uniformity  is  a  result  of  the 
essential  properties  of  matter,  and  that  in  consequence  of 
these  essential  properties  the  universe  has  evolved  itself 
in  an  unbroken  continuity,  we  answer:  Until  it  is  proved, 
as  it  has  not  been,  that  matter  may  be  eternal,  it  can 
scarcely  be  said  to  be  illogical  to  affirm  that  the  order  of 
nature  must  have  had  a  beginning.  If  matter  had  a  be- 
ginning, and  with  it  the  law  of  uniformity,  then  He  who 
created  the  former  must  have  imparted  to  it  the  latter. 

The  principle  of  uniformity  is  not  an  intuitive  belief, 
but  is  an  induction  from  experience.  Belief  in  causation 
is  intuitive;  but  though  reason  necessitates  the  belief 
that  under  the  existing  arrangement  like  causes  pro- 
duce like  effects,  it  does  not  compel  the  concession  that 
the  causes  which  are  now  in  operation  have  always  been 
in  operation.  Possibly  a  different  arrangement  might 
have  been  substituted  for  the  present  arrangement.  Cer- 
tainly the  stability  of  the  present  order  of  things  is  not  a 
primary  belief.  This  is  clearly  asserted  by  John  Stuart 
Mill.  He  affirms:  "The  uniformity  in  the  succession  of 
events  .  .  .  must  be  received,  not  as  the  law  of  the  uni- 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         457 

verse,  but  of  that  portion  only  which  is  within  the  range 
of  our  means  of  observation,  with  a  reasonable  extension 
to  adjacent  cases."*  What  is  the  earth  compared  with 
the  universe  !  What  is  human  experience  compared 
with  the  experiences  of  all  intelligent  beings  !  What  is 
time  compared  with  the  stretches  of  infinite  duration  ! 
Because  the  law  of  uniformity  prevails  here  and  now,  are 
we  justified  in  affirming  that  it  prevails  everywhere  and 
through  eternal  ages  ?     Assuredly  not. 

An  effect  is  seen,  it  may  be,  to  follow  for  one  hundred 
times  from  a  definite  combination  of  causes.  The  infer- 
ence is  drawn  that  it  will  always  do  so,  provided  the  same 
causes,  in  the  same  relations  and  with  the  same  potency, 
are  in  unhindered  operation.  This  is  evidently  an  induc- 
tion. We  are  not  warranted,  however,  in  inferring  a  univer- 
sal law  from  a  limited  number  of  instances.  An  induction 
of  this  nature  can  render  a  belief  eminently  probable:  it 
cannot  render  it  absolutely  certain.  An  examination  of 
a  large  number  of  cases  may  render  it  highly  probable 
that  nature's  laws  are  immutable,  at  least  within  limits. 
No  examination,  however,  which  man  institutes,  can 
force  the  belief  that  in  every  conceivable  case,  under  the 
existing  arrangement  even,  these  laws  must  remain  in 
such  undisputed  ascendency  that  a  supernatural  revelation 
is  an  impossibility;  and,  manifestly,  no  induction  is  suffi- 
ciently extensive  to  impel  belief  in  the  absolute  univer- 
sality and  infinite  duration  of  this  seeming  immutability. 
If  there  is  such  a  law  as  the  eternal  changelessness  of 
nature's  law,  rendering  miracles  an  impossibility  and  the 
beginning  of  the  present  order  of  things  inconceivable, 
reason  ought  to  be  able  to  recognize  it  as  an  intuition. 
Instead,  reason  testifies  that  law  presupposes  a  law- 
giver, who  must  have  instituted  it,  and  may  abrogate  it. 

*  Logic,  vol.  ii.  p.  I! 7. 


458  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

Accordingly,  it  is  the  conviction  of  the  human  family 
that  the  present  apparent  immutability  must  have  had 
a  beginning  and  will  have  an  end.  This  opinion  merits 
respect.  Even  Herbert  Spencer  concedes,  "  We  must 
presume  that  beliefs  which  have  long  existed  and  have 
been  widely  diffused  .  .  .  have  some  foundation  and  some 
amount  of  verity."  Consequently,  this  wide-spread  and 
permanent  conviction  must  have  a  basis  in  truth. 

To  argue,  then,  that  inasmuch  as  nature  has  probably 
been  uniform  in  its  operations  during  the  period  cov- 
ered by  human  observation,  therefore  the  present  econ- 
omy stretches  from  eternity,  is  quite  evidently  illogical. 
The  conclusion  is  broader  than  the  premises,  and'in  the 
judgment  of  many  is  unwarranted.  Experience  justifies 
no  such  inference;  and  yet  the  law  of  uniformity  can  dis- 
cover no  other  basis,  except  experience,  upon  which  to 
rest.  Still,  experience  does  not  warrant  the  conclusion 
that  nature's  laws  are  immutable  under  the  existing  econ- 
omy; much  less,  that  this  economy  is  universal  and  eter- 
nal. Because  gravitation  is  a  law  which  prevails  over  a 
widely  extended  domain,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  uni- 
versal and  eternal.  Herschel  directly  says:  "  It  fails  be- 
yond the  region  of  the  double  stars."  Be  this  as  it  may, 
no  justification  is  furnished  of  the  affirmation  that  it  op- 
erates, precisely  as  it  does  on  earth,  through  the  meas- 
ureless fields  of  immensity.  Scientists  assert  that  ether 
is  not  affected  by  the  force  of  gravitation;  and  that  the 
force  of  repulsion  is  as  universal  as  the  force  of  attrac- 
tion, and  seemingly  has  equal  potency.  If  it  is  conceded 
that  all  the  phenomena  which  present  themselves  under 
the  existing  economy  are  effects  of  natural  causes,  it  does 
not  follow  that  all  phenomena  in  the  buried  past  were 
effects  of  natural  causes;  much  less,  that  they  were 
effects  of  the  same  physical  causes  which  are  now  in  oper- 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         459 

ation.  After  proving  that  nature's  laws  have  been  unvary- 
ing during  the  period  covered  by  time,  it  will  still  remain 
to  prove  that  the  same  laws  existed  and  were  uniform 
ere  time  began.  Until  it  has  been  proved  that  nature's 
laws  have  been  immutable  during  the  flow  of  time,  it 
cannot  be  proved  that  they  were  unvarying  in  eternity. 
In  such  a  proposition,  logical  proof  is  an  impossibility. 

If,  then,  belief  in  the  unvarying  operation  of  nature's 
laws  is  not  a  priori  conviction,  but  rests  on  experience, 
are  we  justified  in  concluding  that  the  present  order  of 
things — under  which  the  same  cause  invariably  produces 
the  same  effect — is  eternal  in  duration  and  universal  in 
sway  ?  May  it  not  have  had  a  beginning, — this  existing 
economy  ?  May  it  not  have  an  end  ?  The  combination 
of  secondary  causes,  which,  to  appearance,  keeps  the 
world  in  continued  being, — may  it  not  have  had  an  origin  ? 
May  it  not  have  an  end  ?  Prof.  Tyndall  claims  that  he 
"can  clearly  show  that  the  present  state  of  things  may 
be  derivative." 

He  might  have  said,  Must  have  had  an  origin  ab  ex- 
tra. "  Modern  scientific  research  tends  towards  the  es- 
tablishment of  this  opinion.  It  enables  us  distinctly  to 
say  that  the  present  order  of  things  has  not  been  evolved 
through  infinite  past  time  by  the  agency  of  laws  now  at 
work,  but  must  have  had  a  distinctive  beginning,  a  state 
beyond  which  we  are  totally  unable  to  penetrate — a  state 
which  must  have  been  produced  by  other  than  the  now 
acting  causes."  * 

This  orderly  succession  of  events,  which  must  have 
had  a  beginning,  must  have  had  that  beginning  in  the 
designs  of  an  Unalterable  Will.  Change  implies  change- 
lessness.  Succession  implies  volition.  Order  implies 
intelligence.     The  finite  implies  the  infinite.     A  law  of 

*  Prof.  P.  G.  Tait,  11  A.,  Nature,  vol.  iv.  p.  271. 


460  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

uniformity  implies  a  Lawgiver  who  enacted  the  law,  who 
maintains  its  integrity,  who  may  hold  it  in  check  by  a 
higher  law  if  He  chooses,  and  who  may  repeal  it  when 
through  it  He  has  accomplished  His  predetermined  pur- 
poses. "  The  law  of  design  is  the  highest  generalization 
of  the  great  uniformities  of  nature."* 

Is  it  then  impossible  for  the  scientist  and  the  theolo- 
gian to  join  hands  ?  The  latter  believes  that  "the  things 
which  are  seen  are  temporal;  the  things  which  are  not  seen 
are  eternal."  Forth  from  eternity,  by  the  fiat  of  the  First 
Cause,  came  matter,  a  material  world,  plant-life,  animal- 
life,  sentient  beings,  and  the  order  in  which  these  manifest 
themselves.  The  physicist  believes  substantially  the 
same  doctrine.  He  admits,  and  even  repeatedly  asserts, 
that  the  earth,  in  its  present  form,  must  have  begun  to 
be;  and  consequently  the  present  arrangement,  so  far  as 
the  earth  forms  a  part  of  it — and  for  us  it  is  the  most  im- 
portant part — must  have  had  a  beginning,  as  also  all  the 
laws  that  prevail  now  and  here.  There  was  a  time,  it  is 
believed,  when  the  earth  was  an  indistinguishable  part  of 
of  a  nebula  which  stretched  to  the  outermost  limits  of  the 
present  solar  system.  Subsequently,  it  became  a  self- 
luminous  globe,  a  heaving  ocean  of  melted  matter  en- 
veloped in  vapors  and  gases.  Losing  heat  by  radiation, 
it  became  a  mass  of  igneous  rock,  around  which  circled 
the  waves  of  a  shoreless  sea  of  agitated  waters.  As  the 
process  of  cooling  advanced,  the  consequent  shrinkage 
produced  ocean-beds,  into  which  the  waters  were  gathered, 
causing  the  dry  land  to  appear.  The  deep  was  tenantless 
and  the  land  verdureless.  Sir  Wm.  Thomson,  basing  his 
argument  on  seemingly  established  data,  concludes  that 
the  consolidation  of  the  earth's  crust  could  not  have  be- 
gun earlier  than  ninety-eight  million  years  ago.    Then  the 

*  Mind  and  Brain,  vol.  i.  p.  107. 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.  461 

present  terrestrial  economy,  so  far  as  plant-life  and  ani- 
mal organisms  are  concerned,  must  have  had  a  beginning. 
Accordingly,  Adolph  Fiche  says,  M  We  are  coming  to  this 
alternative:  either  in  our  highest,  most  general,  most  fun- 
damental abstraction,  some  point  has  been  overlooked, 
or  the  universe  will  have  an  end,  and  must  have  had  a  be- 
ginning; it  could  not  have  existed  from  eternity,  but 
must  at  some  date,  not  infinitely  distant,  have  arisen 
from,  something  not  forming  a  part  of  the  natural  chain 
of  causes,  that  is,  It  must  have  been  created'' 

V.  The  present  economy  will  have  an  end. 

This  the  Bible  student  firmly  believes.  "  The  things 
which  are  seen  are  temporal  " — they  had  a  beginning 
and  they  will  have  an  end.  "There  shall  be  time  no 
more."  "  Earth  and  the  things  which  are  therein  shall 
pass  away  as  a  scroll  when  it  is  rolled  together."  "The 
heavens  shall  pass  away  with  a  great  noise,  and  the  ele- 
ments shall  melt  with  fervent  heat,  the  earth  also  and 
the  works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burned  up." — Heb. 
xii.  27;  Isa.  xxxiv.  4;  Rev.  x.  6,  vi.  14;   II  Pet.  iii.  10. 

Does  modern  science  conflict  with  these  statements  ? 
It  teaches  that  worlds,  suns,  and  systems,  like  animate 
organisms,  pass  successively  through  the  stages  of  birth, 
adolescence,  maturity,  decrepitude,  and  decay.  Worlds 
may  now  be  in  process  of  formation.  The  earth  is  prob- 
ably now  in  its  full  maturity.  The  moon  is  seemingly  an 
extinct  world. 

In  weighing  arguments  which  bear  upon  the  question 
of  the  continuance  of  the  present  order  of  things, it  is  well 
to  keep  in  memory  the  fact  that  the  theory  of  the  dissi- 
pation of  energy  is  now  considered  well  established. 
(Energy  is  defined  as  the  power  of  doing  work,  or  as  that 
kind  of  force  which  produces  change.)  Modern  science 
accepts  the  doctrine  of  the  correlation  and  conservation  of 


4G2  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

the  physical  forces, — light,  heat,  electricity,  magnetism, 
and  chemical  affinity.  Each  force,  it  is  believed,  may  as- 
sume either  of  these  several  forms.  Force,  however,  can 
be  neither  augmented,  nor  diminished;  neither  created 
nor  annihilated.  Consequently,  the  force  in  the  solar  sys- 
tem, aside  from  what  it  may  receive  from  without,  or  may 
lose  in  interstellar  space,  is  a  constant  quantity,  though 
it  may  be  incessantly  undergoing  degradation,  thereby 
passing  into  a  form  no  longer  available  for  work.  That 
such  degradation  is  going  on  is  conceded  by  scientists. 
Though  there  is  such  a  law  as  the  transformation  of 
forces, — each  being  capable  of  conversion, — force  cannot 
be  exactly  re-transformed,  because  a  portion  is  converted 
into  heat,  a  part  of  which  is  dissipated.  This  diffused 
heat  represents  wasted  energy,  being  incapable  of  further 
conversion.  As  the  force  in  the  universe  is  constantly 
undergoing  conversion  into  radiant  heat,  that  is,  into 
an  unavailable  form  of  energy,  the  time  must  come,  how- 
ever remote,  when  the  present  economy  will  terminate. 
Such  is  the  opinion  of  Prof.  Helmholtz. 
He  affirms: — 

"  Nature  as  a  whole  possesses  a  store  of  force  which  cannot  in  any  way  be 
either  increased  or  diminished.  The  quantity  of  force  in  nature  is  just  as 
eternal  and  unalterable  as  the  quantity  of  matter.  .  .  .  From  the  fact  that  no 
portion  of  force  can  be  absolutely  lost,  it  does  not  follow  that  a  portion  may  not 
be  inapplicable  to  human  purposes.  ...  If  all  the  bodies  in  nature  had  the 
same  temperature  it  would  be  impossible  to  convert  any  portion  of  their  heat 
into  mechanical  work.  .  .  .  We  can  divide  the  whole  force-store  of  the 
universe  into  two  parts,  one  of  which  is  heat  and  must  continue  to  be  such; 
the  other  ...  is  capable  of  the  most  varied  changes  of  form,  and  constitutes 
the  whole  wealth  of  change  which  takes  place  in  nature.  ...  At  each  motion 
of  a  terrestrial  body  a  portion  of  mechanical  force  passes  by  friction  or  collision 
into  heat,  of  which  only  a  part  can  be  converted  back  again  into  mechanical 
force.  .  .  .  From  this  it  follows  that  the  first  portion  of  the  store  of  force,  the 
unchangeable  heat,  is  augmented  by  every  natural  process,  while  the  second 
portion,  mechanical,  electrical,  and  chemical  force,  must  be  diminished;  so 
that  if  the  universe  be  delivered  over  to  the  undisturbed  action  of  its  physical 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         46B 

processes,  all  force  will  finally  pass  into  the  form  of  heat  and  all  heat  come  to  a 
state  of  equilibrium*  Then  all  possibility  of  a  further  change  would  he  at  an 
end,  and  the  complete  cessation  of  all  natural  processes  must  set  in.  The  life  of 
men,  animals,  and  plants,  could  not  of  course  continue  if  the  sun  had  lost  its 
high  temperature,  and  with  it  its  light,— if  all  the  components  of  the  earth's 
surface  had  closed  those  combinations  which  their  affinities  demand.  In  short, 
the  universe  from  that  time  forward  would  be  condemned  to  a  state  of  eternal 
rest." 

"  Thus  the  inexorable  laws  of  mechanics  indicate  that  the  store  of  force  in  our 
planetary  system,  which  can  only  suffer  loss  and  not  gain,  must  be  finally 
exhausted."  * 

Sir  Wm.  Thomson  affirms: — 

"  A  material  system  can  never  be  brought  through  any  returning  cycle  of 
motions  without  spending  more  work  against  the  mutual  forces  of  its  parts  than 
it  gained  from  these  parts,  because  no  relative  motion  can  take  place  without 
meeting  with  frictional  or  other  forms  of  resistance."  Again:  "There  can 
be  but  one  ultimate  result  for  such  a  system  as  that  of  the  sun  and  planets,  if 
continuing  long  enough  under  existing  laws,  and  not  disturbed  by  meeting  with 
other  moving  masses  in  space.  That  result  is  the  falling  together  of  all  into 
one  mass,  which,  although  rotating  for  a  time,  must-  in  the  end  come  to  rest 
relatively  to  the  surrounding  medium."  f 

Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  asserts: — 

"  The  tacit  assumption  hitherto  current,  that  the  sun  can  continue  to  give  off 
an  undiminished  amount  of  light  and  heat  through  all  future  time,  is  fast  being 
abandoned. ' ' 

"  Infinitely  remote  as  may  be  the  state  when  all  the  motions  of  masses  shall  be 
transformed  into  molecular  motion,  and  all  the  molecular  motion  equilibrated; 
yet  such  a  state  of  complete  integration  and  complete  equilibration  is  that 
towards  which  the  changes  now  going  on  throughout  the  solar  system  inevi- 
tably tend." 

"  If  the  solar  system  is  slowly  dissipating  its  forces — if  the  sun  is  losing  its 
heat  at  a  rate  which  will  tell  in  millions  of  years— if  with  diminution  of  the 
sun's  radiations  there  must  go  on  a  diminution  in.  the  activity  of  geologic  and 
meteorologic  processes  as  well  as  in  the  quantity  of  vegetal  and  animal  existence 
— if  man  and  society  are  similarly  dependent  on  this  supply  of  force  that  is 
gradually  coming  to  an  end;  are  we  not  manifestly  progressing  towards  omni- 
present death  ?  That  such  a  state  must  be  the  outcome  of  the  processes  every- 
where going  on,  seems  beyond  doubt.     Whether  any  ulterior  processes  may 

*  Correlation  and  Conserz'ation  of  Forces,  pp.  227,  228,  229,  245. 
f  Natural  Philosophy,  vol.  i.  pp.  190,  191,  194. 


404  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

reverse  these  changes,  and  initiate  a  new  liie,  is  a  question  to  be  considered 
hereafter.  For  the  present  it  must  suffice  that  the  proximate  end  of  all  the 
transformations  we  have  traced,  is  a  state  of  quiescence."  * 

Scientists  are  inclined  to  concede  that  the  moon, 
which  has  passed  through  a  protracted  series  of  changes, 
is  destined  to  ultimate  extinction.  For  some  cause, 
most  probably  the  resistance  it  meets  from  the  ether,  the 
centrifugal  force  is  gradually  diminishing,and  consequently 
the  centripetal  force  is  shortening  the  orbit.  Hence, 
if  this  state  of  things  continues,  the  period  must  arrive 
when  it  will  fall  upon  the  earth. 

Prof.  J.  R.  Mayer  says: — 

"  The  movement  of  celestial  bodies  in  an  absolute  vacuum  would  be  as  uniform 
as  those  of  a  mathematical  pendulum,  whereas  a  resisting  medium  pervading  all 
space  would  cause  the  planets  to  move  in  shorter  and  shorter  orbits,  and  at 
last  to  fall  into  the  sun."  f 

Astronomers  also  assure  us  that  the  earth,  which  ge- 
ologists acknowledge  has  passed  through  innumerable 
changes,  is  destined  to  still  further  permutations.  It  has 
passed  through  vast  geological  epochs;  through  great 
ice-ages;  through  inter-glacial  periods,  when  a  tropical 
climate  prevailed,  and  coral  and  chambered  shells  were 
deposited,  and  coal  beds  were  formed;  through  a  period 
of  submergence,  when  sand  and  gravel  were  deposited 
above  the  coal;  through  another  glacial  period,  when 
masses  of  ice  floating  on  an  arctic  sea  conveyed  boulders 
from  distant  mountain  summits. 

Nor  are  we  left  without  shrewd  conjectures  as  to  the 
causes  which  produced  these  climatic  changes.  Some 
regard  them  as  due  to  changes  in  the  inclination  of  the 
earth's  axis  to  the  plane  of  its  orbit.  Some  imagine  that 
the  solar  system,  in  its  journeyings  through  space,  passes 

*  First  Principles,  pp.  493,  495,  514. 

\  Correlation  and  Conservation  0/  Forces,  p.  265. 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         465 

through  regions  of  different  temperature.  Some  attribute 
the  differences  to  changes  in  the  distribution  of  land  and 
water.  Some  seek  a  solution  of  the  difficult  problem  by 
assuming  a  change  in  the  position  of  the  earth's  axis, 
caused,  perhaps,  by  lofty  mountains  between  the  poles 
and  the  equator.  Some  argue  that  the  succession  of 
glacial  and  tropical  periods  is  the  result  of  a  variation  in 
the  amount  of  heat  received  from  the  sun,  which  is  pro- 
nounced a  variable  star.  Some  maintain  that  these 
wide  differences  of  temperature  are  due  to  a  change  in 
the  elipticity  of  the  earth's  orbit,  which,  when  nearest 
circular,  produces  a  tropical  period,  when  most  eliptical, 
causes  an  ice-age.  Some — conspicuously  Mr.  James 
Croll,  in  his  work,  Climate  and  Time  in  their  Geological 
Relations — find  a  solution  of  the  bewildering  problem  in 
the  united  influence  of  a  precession  of  the  equinoxes  and 
a  change  in  the  obliquity  of  the  ecliptic.  These  causes, 
it  is  said,  have  produced  three  great  ice-ages  in  the  last 
three  million  years,  separated  by  irregular  intervals,  and 
lasting,  respectively,  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand, 
two  hundred  and  sixty  thousand,  and  one  hundred  and 
seventy  thousand  years.  The  last  period,  it  is  conjec- 
tured began  two  hundred  and  forty  thousand  years  ago, 
and  terminated  seventy  thousand  years  ago;  for  the  last 
ten  thousand  years  we  have  been  approaching  a  tropical 
period,  which  will  reach  its  maximum  in  about  twenty- 
four  thousand  years. 

Whatever  opinions  one  may  be  disposed  to  entertain 
in  reference  to  these  and  similar  abstruse  calculations, 
he  can  scarcely  fail  to  concede  that  the  surfaces  of  the 
continents  have  undergone  great  changes.  Under  the 
action  of  frost  and  rain,  the  rocks  of  the  loftiest  moun- 
tains are  gradually  transported  to  ocean-beds.  Indeed, 
these  influences  are  so  potent  that  but  little  difficulty  is 


466  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

experienced  in  accepting  the  assertion  that  ocean  and 
continent  have  exchanged  position  at  least  once,  and 
probably  several  times. 

That  the  earth,  which  has  been  the  theatre  of  many 
and  great  changes,  is  destined  to  further  change,  and  to 
ultimate  extinction,  can  scarcely  be  denied.  Like  the 
moon,  it  encounters  resistance  in  its  journeyings  through 
space,  and  must  consequently  be  moving  in  a  shorter  orbit, 
and  must  at  last  fall  into  the  sun.  Prof.  J.  R.  Mayer  asserts 
that,  assuming  a  resisting  medium  *  (which  astronomers 
are  unanimous  in  doing),  all  the  masses  of  matter  within 
the  limits  of  the  solar  system  must  some  day  find  a  grave 
in  the  sun.  The  moon's  mass  would  keep  the  sun's  fires 
burning  from  one  to  two  years;  the  earth's  mass,  from 
sixty  to  one  hundred  and  twenty  years. 

Another  evidence  that  the  earth,  which  had  a  begin- 
ning, must  have  an  end, — at  least  as  a  habitation  for  such 
organisms  as  now  exist  upon  it, — is  found  in  the  fact  that 
it  is  ceaselessly  parting  with  its  interior  heat  by  radiation. 
It  was  once  a  liquid  mass,  as  is  proved  by  its  form,  be- 
ing flattened  at  the  poles.  The  liquid  condition  was  not 
that  of  water,  but  of  dense  matter  melted  by  a  high 
temperature.  The  earth  must  have  been  a  molten  sea. 
The  increase  of  temperature  discoverable  in  boring  arte- 
sian wells,  and  the  numerous  thermal  springs  and  volcanic 
eruptions,  prove  that  a  high  temperature  still  prevails  in 
the  interior  of  the  earth.  Experiment  has  shown  that 
the  earth's  crust  increases  in  temperature  at  the  rate  of 
one  degree  for  thirty  meters  of  descent  towards  its  center. 
Consequently,  at  the  depth  of  a  few  miles,  every  known  sub- 
stance would  be  fused — leaving  a  heaving  mass  of  melted 
matter  encased  in  a  hardened  crust.     The  interior  heat 

*  That  interstellar  spaces  are  rilled  with  a  luminiferous  ether  is  the  opinion 
of  all  eminent  scientists,  including  J.  Clerk  Maxwell.  Helmholtz.  Faraday,  etc. 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         407 

of  the  earth  is  generally  regarded  as  a  result  of  the 
mechanical  union  of  two  or  more  cosmical  masses  which 
are  supposed  to  have  entered  into  its  original  composi- 
tion, or  as  a  result  of  the  condensation  of  matter  which 
once  pervaded  the  space  of  the  solar  system  between  its 
nearest  neighboring  systems.  During  its  incandescent 
state,  it  must  have  parted  with  heat  much  more  rapidly 
than  it  does  at  present,  or  has  done  for  many  ages.  The 
cooling  process  must  have  gradually  become  less  and 
less  pronounced,  the  hardened  crust  continuously  dimin- 
ishing the  amount  of  heat  lost  by  radiation.  During 
this  protracted  period,  the  convulsions  of  its  surface 
must  have  been  great  and  widely  extended.  Mountain- 
chains,  the  back-bones  of  continents,  must  have  been 
formed  by  upheavals,  or  by  the  shrinkage  which  caused 
ocean-beds,  or  by  these  two  causes  acting  in  conjunction. 

It  is  estimated  that  the  amount  of  heat  now  lost  by 
the  earth  in  the  space  of  a  hundred  years  is  equal  to  the 
amount  needed  to  melt  a  layer  of  ice  three  miles  in 
thickness  and  covering  the  entire  surface  of  the  globe. 

This  immense  loss  must  result  in  the  gradual  contrac- 
tion of  the  earth's  crust,  which  contraction  is  going  on, 
as  is  evidenced  by  earthquakes  and  volcanic  eruptions. 
Notwithstanding  this  decrease  in  the  length  of  the 
earth's  radius,  the  day  has  remained  the  same  length  for 
at  least  two  thousand  years.  This  seeming  anomaly  is  re- 
garded as  sufficiently  accounted  for  by  assuming  that  the 
tidal  wave  has  tended  to  diminish  the  velocity  of  the  earth's 
rotation,  to  the  exact  extent  that  the  shortening  of  the 
radius  has  tended  to  its  increase;  that,  consequently, 
during  the  present  era  the  length  of  the  day  has  remained 
unchanged.  In  the  earlier  existence  of  the  earth,  how- 
ever, the  great  rapidity  of  the  cooling  process  may  have 
caused,  probably  did  cause,  a  continual  increase  in  the 


4(58  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

velocity  of  rotatkm,  the  day  growing  shorter  and  shorter 
until  it  reached  *its  present  uniform  length.  It  is  also 
assumed  that  the  time  may  come,  when  the  retarding 
influence  of  the  tidal  wave  may  cause  a  sufficient  decrease 
in  the  velocity  of  rotation  to  produce  a  sensible  elonga- 
tion of  the  day.  The  earth,  which  is  now  in  its  full 
maturity,  is  regarded  as  having  had  its  youth,  and  as 
destined  to  pass  into  the  decrepitude  of  old  age. 

This  continued  cooling  of  the  earth's  crust  must  of 
course  have  a  sensible  effect  on  temperature,  and  may 
ultimately  render  it  uninhabitable,  causing  all  organic 
life  to  perish,  leaving  the  planet  one  vast  sepulchre. 
Certainly  this  loss  of  heat  cannot  continue  forever  with- 
out terminating  the  present  economy.  The  earth,  in 
this  respect  at  least,  does  not  present  evidence  that  it  is 
destined  to  continue  in  its  present  state  throughout 
unending  ages;  indeed,  it  evidently  cannot. 

Nor  is  it  less  certain  that  the  sun,  the  center  of  energy 
to  the  solar  system,  is  undergoing  a  rapid  succession  of 
changes  which  apparently  must  result,  sooner  or  later, 
in  the  death  of  the  planetary  system.  The  temperature 
of  every  luminous  body  necessarily  decreases  in  propor- 
tion as  it  radiates  heat;  and  unless  the  loss  it  thereby 
sustains  is  made  good  from  some  source,  it  must  of  neces- 
sity become  cold  and  lightless.  Every  candle,  however 
lengthy,  ultimately  goes  out  in  darkness.  Every  fire, 
however  vast  the  amount  of  fuel  thrown  thereon,  unless 
the  amount  is  infinite,  must  die  out  for  want  of  material 
to  be  consumed.  The  sun  is  a  fire;  and  accordingly 
must  be  extinguished  some  day,  unless  its  storehouse  of 
fuel  is  absolutely  inexhaustible.  The  heat  it  radiates 
each  minute  is  so  vast  in  amount — 12, 600,000, coo  cubic 
miles  of  heat — that  if  it  were  a  solid  globe  of  anthracite 
coal  it  would  burn  to  ashes  in  about  sixty-four  centuries. 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         469 

Consequently,  unless  its  fires  are  kept  up  by  the  addition 
of  new  fuel,  the  solar  system  must  ultimately  be  shrouded 
in  darkness  and  bound  in  the  fetters  of  death.  If  it  re- 
ceives fuel  from  without  it  must  receive  it,  apparently, 
from  the  space  circumscribed  by  the  orbit  of  the  most 
remote  planet  of  the  system.  This  entire  space  is  filled, 
it  is  true,  with  a  vast  number  of  ponderable  objects, 
asteroids  or  shooting  stars.  These,  having  a  tendency 
to  move  towards  the  center  of  gravity,  finally  fall  into 
the  sun,  finding  a  grave,  and  aiding  to  continue  the  pul- 
sations of  life  in  the  remainder  of  the  system;  indeed 
all  cosmical  masses — the  number  of  which  must  be  al- 
most infinite — circle  around  the  sun  in  an  ever  diminish- 
ing orbit  with  a  velocity  determined  by  their  size.  Con- 
sequently, all  are  destined,  sooner  or  later,  to  extinction 
in  the  sun,  into  which  an  uninterrupted  stream  of  fuel  is 
incessantly  pouring.  Its  fires  are  thus  kept  burning  with 
undiminished  intensity,  satellites,  comets,  and  cosmical 
atoms,  or  asteroids  as  they  have  been  called,  furnishing 
fuel. 

Numerous,  however,  as  these  cosmical  masses  are — 
thousands  of  millions  of  shooting  stars  most  probably 
coming  near  the  earth  in  a  single  year — the  time  must 
come  when  the  last  will  have  found  a  sepulchre  in  the 
sun;  nay,  the  time  must  come  when  asteroids,  comets, 
and  satellites  being  exhausted,  the  planets  themselves, 
which  are  revolving  around  the  sun  in  ever  diminishing 
orbits,  must  fall  into  the  same  grave.  Such,  at  least,  is 
the  opinion  of  Sir  William  Thomson:  "As  the  weights 
of  a  clock  run  down  to  the  lowest  position,  from  which 
they  can  never  rise  again  unless  fresh  energy  is  commun- 
icated to  them  from  some  source  not  yet  exhausted,  so 
surely  must  every  planet  creep  in,  age  after  age,  toward 
the  sun." 


470  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Some  one,  perhaps,  may  be  disposed  to  say:  Possibly 
the  sun,  if  a  vast  fire,  obtains  its  fuel  from  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  solar  system,  or  from  the  trackless  fields 
of  space  through  which  it  moves  accompanied  by  its 
system  of  worlds.  But  evidently,  it  could  not  obtain 
its  fuel  from  beyond  the  limits  of  its  own  attractive 
power;  and  such  limits  must  exist,  for  it  is  not  the 
center  of  gravity  of  the  universe.  Consequently,  if  not 
confined  strictly  to  the  space  enclosed  within  the  orbit 
of  its  most  remote  planet  for  its  supply  of  fuel,  it  must 
at  least  be  confined  to  the  circle  of  its  own  attractive 
energy,  that  is,  it  has  not  an  infinite  store-house  from 
which  to  draw.  Nor  could  it  obtain  an  infinite  supply 
from  the  fields  of  space  through  which  it  journeys,  for  its 
pathway,  in  conformity  with  law,  must  return  into  itself, 
and  consequently  is  not  infinite.  It  cannot  obtain  an 
infinite  supply  from  a  limited  portion  of  space,  which  is 
all  that  can  come  under  the  range  of  its  attraction.  An 
infinite  number  of  cosmical  masses  would  not  only  render 
this  limited  space  a  plenum,  but  would  render  infinite 
space  a  plenum.  Consequently,  neither  from  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  system,  nor  from  the  fields  of  space  through 
which  the  system  passes,  could  the  sun  obtain  an  infinite 
supply  of  fuel ;  but  an  infinite  supply  is  needed  if  the  sun's 
fires  are  to  keep  burning  forever. 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  said  that  some  eminent  astrono- 
mers do  not  accept  this  fuel-hypothesis  in  reference  to 
the  sun's  heat.  This  is  true,  but  the  counter  theories  are 
either  less  tenable,  or  are  such  as  concede  that  the  solar 
system  is  dissipative,  not  conservative.  If  it  is  dissipa- 
tivc,  it  cannot  be  everlasting.  If  it  is  conservative,  it  is 
an  example  of  perpetual  motion,  work  done  without  any 
loss  of  energy.  If  the  generation  and  the  diffusion  of  en- 
ergy are  results  of  the  rotation  of  the  sun  upon  its  axis, 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BTBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         471 

then  it  is  necessary  to  assume,  contrary  to  experience, 
that  mere  motion,  independent  of  friction,  can  produce 
heat,  or  that  the  sun  meets  with  sufficient  friction  from 
the  enveloping  ether  to  generate  the  heat  it  possesses. 
But  simple  motion,  it  is  conceded,  cannot  produce  heat. 
Nor  can  the  sun's  heat  be  produced  by  friction  with 
ether,  for  a  point  on  the  sun's  equator  travels  only  about 
four  times  as  rapidly  as  a  point  on  the  earth's  equator, 
and  only  about  one-sixth  as  rapidly  as  a  point  on  the 
equator  of  Jupiter; — still,  no  heat  is  generated  by  the  ro- 
tation of  Jupiter  upon  its  axis.  It  is  not  a  sun  but  a 
planet. 

Some  assume  that  the  fall  of  cosmical  masses  into  the 
sun  produces  heat  by  mere  percussion.  If  this  be  true, 
the  fuel-theory  is  indeed  disproved;  but  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  the  sun  can  continue  to  generate  heat  forever. 
The  heat  produced  by  percussion  must  be  exhausted 
when  the  last  mass  has  fallen  into  the  sun.  The  present 
discussion,  consequently,  does  not  require  the  refutation 
of  this  theory. 

It  has  been  supposed  that  possibly  solar  heat  is  the 
energy  of  gravitation  transformed  by  condensation  of  the 
sun's  mass;  and  that  this  molecular  motion  is  transmuted 
into  radiant  heat  and  sent  outward  through  space  in 
every  direction.  It  is  safe  to  affirm  that  condensation 
of  the  sun's  mass  could  not  possibly  continue  forever.  On 
this  theory  also  the  system  is  not  conservative,  and  con- 
sequently must  terminate. 

It  is  argued  by  others  that  the  sun's  rays,  which  are 
assumed  to  be  cold,  simply  cause  a  "  substance,"  heat,  to 
pass  from  a  state  of  rest  to  a  state  of  motion.  This 
assumes  that  the  sun  is  not  a  heated  body,  though  it 
can  generate  heat;  that  "  cold  "  is  not  a  relative  term; 
that  heat  is  a  substance,  not  a  mode  of  motion,  and  a 


472  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

substance  now  cold,  now  hot,  now  at  rest,  now  in 
motion.  Such  notions  are  regarded  in  the  present  day 
as  eminently  preposterous.  Besides,  it  is  an  undeniable 
fact  that  the  sun  radiates  not  cold  light,  but  heated 
rays. 

The  only  remaining  hypothesis  meriting  attention  is 
that  which  assumes  that  the  sun  is  continually  receiving 
from  the  system  as  much  heat  as  it  diffuses,  the  system 
being  consequently  a  mechanism  capable  of  running  on 
forever  without  any  waste  whatever,  an  example  of  per- 
petual motion,  a  conservative  system,  not  a  dissipative. 
Without  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  this  question 
we  content  ourselves  with  reminding  the  reader  that 
the  most  eminent  scientists,  Sir  John  Herschel,  Balfour 
Stewart,  Prof.  J.  C.  Maxwell,  Sir  William  Thomson,  Prof. 
Helmholtz,  Prof.  Tyndall,  and  others,  agree  in  regarding 
the  planetary  system  as  dissipative,  not  conservative. 
It  is  not  supposed  that  the  system  has  any  such  effi- 
ciency as  to  be  capable  of  pursuing  a  fixed  course  of  self- 
development  extending  throughout  endless  duration, 
independent  of  any  external  influence;  nor  is  it  imagined 
that  force,  communicated  to  matter  at  its  creation,  is 
equal  to  the  task  of  keeping  the  machinery  running  for- 
ever, no  additional  force  and  no  control  of  existing  forces 
being  necessary.  An  inexhaustible  supply  of  energy 
from  mechanical  processes,  or  from  natural  forces,  be  they 
thermal,  electric,  or  chemical,  is  an  impossibility.  The 
effort  to  ascertain  the  origin  of  force  leads  directly  into 
the  presence-chamber  of  the  Infinite  Personality  who 
sustains  all  existences;  upon  whose  unconditioned  will 
the  continuance  of  the  present  order  of  things  must 
depend. 

This  introduces  to  a  consideration  of  one  further 
proposition: — 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         473 

VI.  The  continued  existence  of  the  universe 

IS   DUE   TO   THE    WILL   OF    GOD. 

That  the  universe  finds  its  causality  in  God  has  been 
proved.  Matter,  force,  life,  spirit,  owe  their  existence  to 
His  efficiency.  In  this  opinion  there  is  general  concur- 
rence, though  theists  differ  when  they  come  to  answer 
the  questions,  Are  these  existences  simply  effects  of 
Divine  volition,  being  called  into  being  ex  niJiilo  ?  or 
are  they  a  formation  from  God's  own  self-existent 
substance  ? 

Having  been  led  to  believe  that  the  fundamental  rela- 
tion of  God  to  the  universe  is  that  of  Originator,  it  is 
proper  to  inquire  whether  He  is  not  also  its  Sustainer. 
Did  His  connection  with  the  existing  order  of  things  ter- 
minate immediately  after  He  inaugurated  it,  or  does  He 
still  sustain  it  in  being  ?  Now  that  the  complicated  ma- 
chine is  in  operation,  does  it  possess  real  efficiency  ?  or  is 
it  to  be  understood  that  God  is  immanent  in  nature,  con- 
tinuing matter  in  being,  giving  potency  to  physical  forces, 
and  sustaining  all  forms  of  life, — plant-life,  animal  organ- 
isms, and  spiritual  existences  ?  Is  man  to  believe  that 
God,  after  creating  a  universe,  left  it  to  tell  off  its  fated 
periods  uninfluenced  by  His  will  ?  or  is  He  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  Conservator  of  all  things,  as  well  as  the 
Creator  ?  In  scientific  discussion  this  is  the  fundamental 
question:  What  sustains  the  universe  in  being  ?  By  the 
answers  given,  reasoners  are  classed  as  atheists,  deists, 
pantheists,  or  theists. 

Satisfactory  evidence  having  been  furnished  that  the 
present  order  of  things  must  have  had  a  beginning  in 
the  unconditioned  will  of  God,  and  will  have  an  end, 
it  would  be  legitimate  to  limit  the  discussion  to  a 
consideration  of  those  theories  of  conservation  which 
find  acceptance  with  believers  in  the  existence  of  God. 


474  THEISAf  AND    EVOLUTION. 

Nevertheless,    it    may   be    well    to    enumerate    the   four 
principal  theories: — 

1.  Matter,  of  which  force  is  but  a  phenomenon,  is  the 
Conservator  of  the  universe. 

2.  Force,  of  which  matter  is  but  a  phenomenon,  is  the 
Conservator  of  the  universe. 

3.  An  underlying  reality,  an  infinite  life,  of  which 
matter  and  force  are  equally  phenomena,  is  the  Con- 
servator of  the  universe. 

4.  A  Personal  God,  who  created  matter  and  whose 
will  is  the  only  self-existent  force,  is  the  Conservator  of 
the  universe. 

The  first  theory  is  that  entertained  by  thorough-going 
materialism.  The  pure  materialist  affirms:  Matter  is  all 
I  need;  with  its  atoms  I  can  explain  the  universe.  Matter 
is  eternal.  I  am  perplexed  by  no  questions  in  reference 
to  the  origin  of  things.  Atoms  are  indestructible,  and 
force  is  one  of  their  essential  attributes;  consequently,  the 
indestructibility  of  matter  and  the  persistence  of  force  sus- 
tain all  things  in  being — no  other  conservation  is  needed. 

Of  the  two  existences,  matter  and  force,  each  of 
which  has  been  so  long  struggling  in  scientific  discussion 
for  the  honor  of  being  the  Ultimate  of  all  ultimates,  he 
persists  in  regarding  the  former  as  the  only  reality. 
Even  mind  he  regards  as  an  attribute  of  matter;  and  so 
regards  plants  and  animal-life.  "  The  atomists,"  says 
Lange,  "attributed  to  matter  only  the  simplest  of  the 
various  properties  of  things — those,  namely,  which  are 
indispensable  for  the  presentation  of  a  something  in 
space  and  time;  and  their  aim  was  to  evolve  from  these 
alone  the  whole  assemblage  of  phenomena.  They  it  was 
who  gave  us  the  first  perfectly  clear  notion  of  what 
we  are  to  understand  by  matter  as  the  basis  of  all 
phenomena." 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         475 

As  to  appearance  there  are  activities  everywhere — 
gravitation  operating  through  interstellar  space, — the  ma- 
terialistic theory,  to  be  logical,  ought  to  carry  with  it  a 
belief  in  the  continuity  of  matter. 

If  the  universe  is  a  material  plenum,  how  is  it  possible 
for  matter  to  be  expanded  by  heat  or  contracted  by  cold  ? 
An  iron  rod,  when  heated,  is  not  expanded  by  the  gen- 
eration of  new  iron,  and  if  it  were,  how  could  it  expand 
in  a  plenum  ?  If  it  is  said:  Being  more  dense  than  the 
enveloping  atmosphere,  it  compresses  the  surrounding  air; 
the  reply  is:  Then  the  space  surrounding  it  was  not  full. 
Particles  in  actual  contact  can  be  brought  no  nearer 
together.  The  most  subtile  fluid,  if  continuous,  occu- 
pies all  space.  If  matter  is  not  continuous,  then  there 
are  spaces  where  there  is  no  force  in  operation,  or  force 
may  be  dissevered  from  matter.  But  if  the  universe  is  a 
material  plenum,  reason  would  seem  to  affirm:  then  there 
can  be  no  difference  in  the  density  of  its  several  parts; 
but  if  there  is  a  difference  in  density,  how  can  heat — which 
is  a  mode  of  motion,  and  not  a  substance — cause  expan- 
sion, and  that  too  without  creating  a  void?  If  it  is  said 
that  a  subtile  fluid,  in  the  interstices  of  the  iron,  is 
expanded,  then  some  fluid  more  subtile  must  occupy  the 
interstices  in  the  first  fluid,  and  a  fluid  more  subtile  still 
must  occupy  the  interstices  in  the  second  fluid,  and  so 
on  ad  infinitum.  Accordingly,  there  must  be  a  difference 
in  the  size  of  the  ultimate  particles  of  matter, — the  fine, 
the  finer,  the  finest;  indeed,  there  must  be  an  infinite  grada- 
tion in  the  minuteness  of  atoms.  Besides,  particles  imply 
division,  and  division  implies  discontinuity.  Again,  in 
a  plenum  the  only  motion  possible,  apparently,  is  a 
vortical  motion.  But  this  reduces  matter  to  a  mere 
abstraction:  it  is  no  longer  a  material  entity.  Insurmount- 
able  difficulties   environ   us,    if  we   attempt    to   regard 


470  THEISM  AND    EVOLUTION. 

matter  as  continuous,  and  by  consequence  as  a  satisfac- 
tory explanation  of  the  universe. 

Accordingly,  as  James  Martineau  affirms,  many  ad- 
vocates of  materialism  prefer  to  believe  that  "  the  universe 
consists  of  atoms  and  empty  space."  They  regard  mat- 
ter as  discontinuous.  But  materialism  asserts,  as  there 
is  no  matter  without  force,  so  likewise  there  is  no  force 
without  matter;  an  assertion  which  apparently  should  be 
understood  as  affirming  that  force  cannot  exist  in  empty 
space,  millions  upon  millions  of  miles  from  any  heavenly 
body;  for  if  there  is  any  empty  space,  the  interstellar 
regions  should  be  regarded  as  such.  It  is  difficult,  to 
say  the  least,  to  believe  that  matter  can  produce  effects 
across  an  almost  limitless  void.  Science  regards  this 
conception  as  so  exceedingly  difficult,  that  it  accepts  the 
theory  of  an  all-pervading  luminiferous  ether. 

But  this  hypothesis  does  not  aid  the  materialist  in 
the  slightest  degree;  for  if  it  is  impossible  to  conceive 
that  the  sun's  attractive  force  can  be  exerted  upon  the  earth 
through  an  intervening  void,  it  is  equally  impossible  to 
suppose  that  the  attractive  force  resident  in  an  atom  of 
ether  can  be  communicated  to  the  nearest  ether-atom 
through  a  vacuum,  the  void  between  the  two  atoms  of 
ether,  if  the  ether  is  discontinuous,  being  no  doubt  as 
great — if  not  greater — in  proportion  to  the  size  of  the 
atoms,  as  is  the  distance  from  the  earth  to  the  sun 
in  proportion  to  their  masses. 

If  atoms  can  exert  an  effect  through  a  vacuum,  let  us 
suppose  two  atoms  sufficiently  remote  from  each  other  to 
remain  relatively  at  rest.  This  supposition  will  answer 
the  purpose,  since  there  can  be  no  essential  difference  in 
the  case,  whatever  may  be  the  extent  of  the  interval  be- 
tween the  atoms.  Is  it  supposable  that  each  of  these  two 
atoms  attracts  the  other  through  a  void,  two  forces  being 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         All 

communicated  without  any  medium  of  communication  ? 
Force  has  then,  apparently,  an  actual  existence  dissevered 
from  matter,  though  the  materialist  asserts  there  can  be  no 
force  without  matter.  Whether  there  can  be  or  not,  the 
materialist  is  compelled  to  concede  that  matter  is  either 
not  discontinuous  or  it  can  act  where  it  is  not.  If  only 
these  two  forces  of  attraction  were  in  operation  through 
this  intervening  vacuum,  the  two  atoms  must  be  brought 
into  actual  contact.  They  are  not:  two  repelling  forces 
are  in  operation.  Consequently,  at  some  imaginary  point 
between  the  two  atoms,  attraction  must  be  in  deadly 
struggle  with  repulsion.  Forces,  which  are  not  matter, 
meet  in  a  vacuum  and  neutralize  each  other,  and  yet 
they  have  no  independent  existence.  Nay,  forces  operat- 
ing through  almost  interminable  intervals,  though  mere 
attributes  of  far-distant  matter,  discover  each  other  and 
destroy  each  other  in  their  deadly  encounter.  It  is  dif- 
ficult to  believe  that  force  is  a  mere  attribute  of  matter, 
and  neither  has,  nor  can  have,  an  independent  existence. 
As  long  as  it  remains  so  difficult  to  conceive  that  force, 
if  a  mere  phenomenon  of  matter,  could  act  in  a  vacuum, 
it  will  be  difficult  for  materialists  to  convince  the  world 
that  spirit  is  an  attribute  of  discontinuous  matter.  If  force 
can  operate  where  no  matter  is,  why  may  it  not  be  an 
independent  entity  ?  And  if  force  may  possibly  have  an 
existence  independent  of  matter,  why  may  not  spirit  ? 
And  if  the  human  spirit  may  be  active  without  depend- 
ence on  molecular  vibrations,  may  we  not  believe  in  the 
existence  of  an  extra-mundane  God  ?  If  God  exists,  it  is 
more  reasonable  to  regard  Him  as  the  Conservator  of  the 
universe  than  to  regard  discontinuous  atoms  as  the  sus- 
taining power  of  the  universe. 

The  second  theory  regards  force  as  the  Conservator  of 
the  universe    and  matter  as  merely  phenomenal.     The 


478  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

properties  of  matter,  it  is  asserted,  are  effects  of  an 
underlying  reality.  If  matter  is  simply  local  force,  which 
in  the  ultimate  analysis  merges  into  dynamic  points, 
centers  of  attraction  and  repulsion;  then  mathematical 
points  attract  and  repel  each  other.  Can  there  be  attrac- 
tion with  nothing  to  attract  ?  Can  there  be  repulsion  with 
nothing  to  repel  ?  After  resolving  solidity  into  force, 
and  extension  into  a  mathematical  point,  nothing  remains 
except  position.  Consequently,  even  the  possibility  of 
motion  is  eliminated.  How  can  there  be  motion  with 
nothing  to  be  moved  ?  It  is  manifest  that  matter  is  in- 
disposed to  submit  quietly  to  this  process  of  elimination. 
It  refuses  to  be  politely  bowed  out  of  existence. 

This  theory,  that  matter  is  a  phenomenon  of  force, 
leads  naturally  to  some  form  of  idealism;  though  not 
necessarily  to  the  form  commonly  attributed  to  Berkeley, 
who  possibly  has  been  misunderstood.  To  know  that 
anything  exists  outside  of  one's  self  he  regarded  as  impos- 
sible. Perhaps  he  did  not  consider  the  external  world  a 
dream,  but  was  discussing  the  philosophical  question: 
What  is  the  underlying  reality  ?  Color,  smoothness, 
hardness,  all  the  properties  of  matter,  he  resolved  into 
perceptions.  Accepting  the  unity  of  the  universe  as  an 
established  fact,  and  being  unable  to  satisfy  himself  that 
matter,  in  the  ultimate  analysis,  was  anything  more  than 
a  phenomenon,  he  was  in  search  of  the  underlying  sub- 
stance, in  which  what  is  known  as  the  material,  and  what 
is  known  as  the  dynamic,  may  inhere.  Matter  and  mind 
are  both  existences.  Which  is  the  real  substance?  He 
answered:  Not  both,  but  mind.  He  persisted  in  viewing 
matter  as  something  not  essentially  different  from  mind; 
as  in  fact  the  creation  of  mind,  an  aspect  of  the  one  eter- 
nal substance.  The  present  discussion  does  not  call  for 
a  refutation  of  idealism. 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         479 

Those  who  accept  the  dynamic  theory  as  a  satisfac- 
tory explanation  of  the  origin  of  matter,  of  life,  and  even 
of  consciousness,  are  under  the  necessity  of  regarding 
force  as  the  conservator  of  all  things.  A  moment's 
reflection,  however,  will  suffice  to  discern  some  serious 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  considering  this  the  world's  con- 
servator. The  forces  of  nature,  as  far  as  known,  are 
capable  of  transmutation.  How  can  these  transmutable 
forces  arrange  themselves  into  an  order  in  time  and  in 
space  ?  Their  order  is  a  phenomenon  which  implies  an 
intelligent  power  back  of  them;  it  is  evidently  not  a 
function  of  the  forces  themselves.  They  run  back  to  one 
force,  which,  if  it  is  to  maintain  the  present  order  of 
things,  and  is  to  evolve  in  an  orderly  succession  another 
state  of  things,  must  be  something  more  than  blind  energy 
groping  for  agencies  by  which  to  preserve  the  existing 
economy,  or  ignorantly  searching  for  channels  through 
which  to  introduce  a  series  of  changes,  each  of  which  is 
a  graduated  step  in  a  fore-determined  plan.  Plurality  of 
forces  thus  disappears;  but  the  one  force  which  remains 
refuses  to  do  the  work  imposed  upon  it  without  being 
invested  with  the  attributes  of  God.  It  is  an  intelligent 
force,  indeed  must  be.  Continuance  without  causality  is 
just  as  inconceivable  as  is  origination  without  causality. 
There  cannot  be  an  existing  order  of  things  without 
the  possibility  of  a  different  order.  If  the  existing  order 
persists  in  continuing,  there  must  be  some  adequate  cause 
to  effect  the  continuance;  and  that  cause  cannot  be 
resident  in  the  order  itself.  It  cannot  be  the  forces  of 
nature,  for  science  pronounces  these  simply  phenomenal 
manifestations  of  one  force.  It  cannot  be  this  one  force 
regarded  as  mere  physical  energy,  nor  indeed  as  energy 
of  any  kind,  for  its  manifestations  maintain  an  order  in 
time,  in  space,  and  in  potency,  and  even  evince  a  purpose. 


480  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

If,  then,  force  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  conservator  of 
the  universe,  it  must  be  considered  as  the  exact  equiv- 
alent of  power,  that  is,  as  will.  In  short,  it  must  be 
exalted  to  the  throne  of  universal  dominion,  and  may  as 
well  bear  the  name  God,  as  to  be  recognized  under  a  new 
designation.  To  the  final  cause,  the  theist  irresistibly 
attributes  personality.  Nor  is  he  driven  from  this  by  be- 
ing charged  with  anthropomorphism.  Though  he  may 
be  told  by  some  that  force  has  no  real  existence,  and 
by  others  that  matter  has  none,  he  is  indisposed  to  be- 
lieve that  will  is  merely  phenomenal.  He  believes  him- 
self capable  of  exercising  will-power.  Consequently,  in 
his  judgment,  the  existence  of  a  universal  will  has  a  more 
satisfactory  basis  upon  which  to  rest  than  the  reality 
of  either  matter  or  physical  force;  for  the  difficulty  in 
regarding  the  human  will  as  a  mere  phenomenon  has 
prompted  most  reasoners  to  pronounce  it  an  independent 
reality.  Consequently,  if  the  universe  continues  as  a 
result  of  mechanical  or  dynamic  necessity,  this,  far  from 
proving  the  absence  of  purpose,  proves  persistence  of 
purpose  on  the  part  of  an  eternal  will.  Than  will,  no 
other  cause  is  known  to  exist.  Some  cause  must  produce 
this  continuance.  The  cause  is  not  in  nature  herself,  for 
nature  has  no  will.  Therefore,  the  cause  must  be  super- 
natural, an  unconditioned  will.  Absolute  causation  in 
nature  is  a  thing  which  science  has  not  yet  proved. 
Is  the  human  intellect  capable  of  proving  that  the  pres- 
ent order  is  not  the  result  of  will  ?  May  not  an  omnis- 
cient mind  have  so  constructed  the  cosmos  as  to  make 
it  contain  within  itself  the  evidence  of  an  inherent  neces- 
sity? Everything  runs  backwards  irresistibly  to. Uncon- 
ditioned Personality.  Origination  and  conservation  alike 
find  their  explanation  in  free  causality. 

Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  asserts: — 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         481 

"Matter  and  motion  are  both  regarded  by  me  as  modes  of  manifestation  of 
force,  and  force,  as  we  are  conscious  of  it  when  by  our  own  efforts  we  produce 
changes,  is  the  correlative  of  that  universal  power  which  transcends  conscious- 
ness." "The  existence  of  this  inscrutable  power  is  the  most  certain  of  all 
truths."  * 

The  third  theory  regards  matter  and  spirit  as  equally 
phenomena  of  an  underlying  reality.  This  is  the  pan- 
theistic explanation  of  the  conservation  of  the  world.  It 
assumes  that  neither  force  nor  matter  furnishes  an 
explanation  of  the  origin  of  things  or  of  their  persistence 
in  continuance.  In  common  with  theism,  it  maintains 
that  nature  is  not  explicable  on  mechanical  principles.  It 
asserts  that  back  of  both  matter  and  force  is  a  fundamen- 
tal mystery  which  mechanism  cannot  explain,  and  which 
therefore  may  not  be  considered  mechanical.  This  under- 
lying reality  is  an  infinite  life.  Consciousness  is  back  of 
physical  phenomena.  Back  of  consciousness  is  that  from 
which  consciousness  springs,  self.  Even  self  is  a  vanish- 
ing mirage.  Back  of  self  is  an  infinite  ocean  of  being 
that  rolls  itself,  wave  after  wave,  into  a  little  cove  which 
I  denominate  self.  I  am  fleeting  impressions',  but  I  am 
more:  I  am  a  bundle  of  memories;  but  I  am  more:  I  am 
a  substratum  of  conscious  susceptibility;  but  I  am  more — 
I  am  part  of  the  Infinite.  The  sense  of  personal  identity, 
which  is  lost  at  death,  is  almost  certainly  lost  forever. 

On  this  theory, God's  relation  to  the  world  is  that  of 
an  ever-abiding  life,  the  soul  of  creation,  hylozoism;  or 
that  of  an  unconscious  intelligence  operative  everywhere, 
pantheism;  or  that  of  an  Infinite  Personality  (though 
infinity  and  personality  appear  irreconcilable)  underlying 
nature  and  not  certainly  known  to  have  an  existence 
independent  of  nature. 

The  fourth  theory  considers  matter  and  spirit  two 
distinct  substances.     This  is  the  theistic  conception.     It 

*  First  Principles,  pp.  579.  581. 


£82  THEISM   AND    EVOLUTION. 

assumes  that  God,  an  eternal  Spirit,  created  the  universe, 
and  sustains  it  in  being".  Origination  and  conservation 
are  effects  of  His  own  unconditioned  Will.  Matter  owes 
its  existence  to  His  volition,  its  continuance  to  His  sus- 
taining power.  It  may  be  an  effluence  of  His  own  self- 
existent  substance,  but  is  not  independent  of  His  will. 
Force  is  His  immanence  in  nature.  Life  is  His  creation, 
not  necessarily  ex  niliilo,  but  possibly  a  drop  of  His  own 
eternal  Personality,  assuming  the  various  forms  it  mani- 
fests as  a  result  of  His  direct  volition.  Consciousness  is 
His  creative  work,  though  it  may  be  but  a  self-willed 
efflux  from  His  own  Infinite  Personality. 

This  theory  denies  that  the  world  is  a  self-adjusting  ma- 
chine, the  total  vis  viva  of  which  can  be  neither  increased 
nor  diminished.  It  repudiates  the  doctrine  that  the 
forces  operative  in  nature  are  eternal,  and  that  conse- 
quently they  suffice  to  sustain  the  universe.  It  refuses 
to  concede  that  active  force,  communicated  to  matter  at 
its  creation,  renders  immediate  Divine  agency  unneces- 
sary to  the  conservation  of  the  world.  On  the  contrary, 
it  maintains  that  in  tracing  force  back  to  its  origin  we 
come  into  the  presence-chamber  of  an  Unconditioned 
Will,  of  the  Infinite  Personality,  who  unceasingly  exerts 
sustaining  power  upon  matter,  plant-life,  animal  organ- 
isms, and  sentient  beings.  It  repudiates  hylozoism  and 
every  form  of  pantheism,  refusing  to  identify  divine  power 
and  divine  intelligence  with  the  agencies  at  work  in  the 
world  of  matter  and  mind. 

As  the  Divine  Immanence  in  Nature  has  been  pre- 
viously discussed,  nothing  more  is  now  demanded  than 
the  presentation  of  selections  from  Scriptural  assertions 
bearing  upon  God's  present  relations  to  the  world.  "  He 
is  before  all  things  and  by  Him  all  things  consist"  (Col.  i. 
17).     The  existing  order  of  things  then   is  not  eternal, 


SCIENCE    AND    THE    BIBLE;    NO    CONFLICT.         483 

but  had  a  beginning  in  time.  There  was  a  period  when 
it  was  not,  though  God  was.  It  was  not  a  self-evolution, 
for  "  God  is  before  all  things."  Not  even  in  their  sub- 
stantial existence  are  all  things  eternal;  much  less  are 
they  so  in  the  individual  forms  they  assume.  Matter, 
coming  into  existence  subsequently,  has  indeed  assumed 
new  forms.  Life,  having  an  origin  in  the  will  of  God,  has 
become  manifest  in  more  complex  forms;  but  no  living 
organism  is  co-eternal  with  Him.  Everything  has  had  an 
origin.  The  passage  further  affirms  that  nature  does 
not  possess  the  power  of  self-preservation.  Separate 
forms  of  matter, — worlds  and  systems  of  worlds, — the 
various  modes  of  physical  force  and  individual  living  or- 
ganisms, do  not  have  continued  existence  independent 
of  the  Divine  efficiency.  "  Of  Him,  and  through  Him,  and 
for  Him,  are  all  things"  (Rom.  ii.  36).  "  He  giveth  to  all 
life,  and  breath  and  all  things  "  (Acts  xvii.  25).  "  He  up- 
holds all  things  by  the  word  of  His  power"  (Heb.  i.  3). 
"  There  are  diversities  of  operation,  but  it  is  the  same 
God  who  worketh  all  in  all."  "  In  Him  we  live,  move, 
and  have  our  being." 


FINIS. 


1    1012  01017  8236 


